|
|
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
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given us an up to date view of change management- “Leaders of Change- Companies prepare for a stronger future”.
A little background:
The study was authored by Paul Kielstra. It survey 288 executives, 42 % C-level or above from North America (44%), Western Europe (40%) and Latin America (16%). 75% of respondents came from organizations with revenue of US$1bn or above. A nice mix to give us some change statistics.
Their introduction:
“Although companies remain, as always, cost conscious, they are putting much more emphasis on growing market share and preparing for the future.
Similarly, organisations are increasingly devoting their attention to the sales and marketing functions.
This further reflects the shift in emphasis towards growth and the future and away from cost cutting.
Apparently, executives are leaving the preoccupations of surviving the downturn behind.
Yet companies are still, all too often, unable to execute change. The responsibility inevitably resides
with their leaders.
Excellent! Statistics to back up my comments for the last six months or so.
Driving forces for change:
Cost pressures topped the list averaging 50% with customer demand, regulation and market share following. Growth types of change- mergers, market opportunity and reducing complexity (nimble is crucial for fast change) were significantly lower percentages. The good news is that last years study topped 66% for cost reduction- that is improvement in the right direction.
An interesting note here- Wouldn’t “reducing complexity”, not cost cutting but creating nimbleness, help for any change? Adding a Corporate Change Management entity would fall in that category. What better time than now to do that to be ready for next year’s study that has growth initiatives topping the charts…
Which area of the corporation is getting the change initiatives?
Sales wins with 41% followed by Supply chain/Procurement (26%), IT (24%) and Finance (20%). HR, Customer Service and others fall farther down the list. Sales and marketing, that would be a first step toward growth- a good sign. Of course I am not happy to see procurement so high on the list- that will turn out to have been a problem when everyone switches to growth mode (the environment as a result is not conducive to external input that can help fuel the right growth).
The “company as a whole”, Asset optimization and “Senior management” barely make the chart. No investment in infrastructure or people. That is a trend that will need to change for growth and prosperity that filters throughout the organization.
Change in Resource Focus:
There is a trend in this study toward altered focus on resource spending. Forty seven percent of the respondents have environments where change focus was either increased or greatly increased. A VERY significant set of number, good ones, is the measure of executive participation with important change. Sixty three percent of the respondents fell in the increased or greatly increased categories.
Did 37% of the executives in the polled organizations think the status quo was doing just fine? Or, in fairness, maybe they were in no position to change anything.
Success?
So were these change initiatives successful (keeping in mind we are asking what might be the foxes in the hen house…)?
73% think that at least half of their change was successful. So much for the bandied about 70% failure rate.
Bottleneck Employees
Who is responsible for the 27% failure (and the extra percentage built into the 1/2, 3/4 responses)?
Those poor middle managers always taking the heat for everything. I admit I am a little guilty as charged for jumping on that band wagon. At times the criticism is warranted, but these numbers look like it is piled on- especially since only five percent of the respondents were willing to take the heat. Humility, refreshing, I want them for clients.
Cause of Failure
This is always revealing and this survey did not disappoint.
Lack of clearly defined milestones and objectives “won” this one easily (35% C-suite and 28% non C-suite, but still in the senior leader category). Insufficient funding, poor communication and employee resistance (the light in the tunnel) were far behind.
First look at the chart and think about who the survey respondents were. It looks as if the C-suite is pointing fingers at middle management again. What if we gave the same survey to those same senior managers, or better yet the other stakeholders? Think the numbers would tweak a little? This chart illustrates the reason why we have change management in the first place. And the questions play into the framing.
Thanks to the framing of the survey (science can be manipulated) there are no questions about descriptions of end states. Or a nice question about the presence of the owner. I am guessing these respondents think “senior management” are the implementers (not them). And insufficient funding only gets 3 and 7 percent in a nasty down economy. I find that almost impossible to believe.
But in all fairness this is good stuff. It is the right mix for the survey. It is owners answering the questions. The questions are revealing as are the answers (the top line above reveals a project management focus toward change, even at the highest levels).
This study from the Economist givess timely statistics for change. Here is to hoping the percentages sweep in favor of growth and large scale transformation for the next version.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change failure, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, organizational change, statistics, vision to work
I have seen this before, but on a recent engagement it was painfully obvious. Big change has an underlying assumption of mini-ownership of process, tasks and work effort.
Here is how the process usually plays out:
- A “sponsor” is picked either before the business case is built or after (usually from the initial team in that case).
- The sponsor is expected to reach out into functions for leadership.
- Those leaders with find, pick, nominate or coerce an initial team of “champions”.
- Those champions will be the in-person deliverers of work, task and message
- Finally the end stakeholders (“line” in some cases) will own the change and make it happen.
I have inserted a few quotation marks which means there are problems…
Sponsor ownership
The sponsor is not the owner. To have them own the change is a problem. They will not have the same level of respect as the true owner (the person responsible for the budget of the change- yes it is always one person). While likely still a high level senior leader they will not have the breadth of reach that the owner does (nor the level of influence). That can make big change tough. Big change does not work well when permission must be granted, over and over again. If you have to ask permission you do not own.
The sponsor must have a mini level of ownership, compared to the owner. Without the owner reinforcing that change will run into problems, up to and including failure.
Passing everything quickly to a sponsor by virtue of your status quo approach, passing the buck or just naiveté is a mini-ownership problem first step.
Mid level leadership
Which typically gets repeated with a pass to mid level leadership (usually Directors within functions). Mid level leadership most definitely owns the translation of the idea into work. They own an important messaging component. But if they are receiving a second pass of the baton (with no lead given from the first runner) they are starting off with an ownership/leadership disadvantage.
In my experience some of these leaders ought to be given MORE ownership because they get it, their stakeholders know and see that and things will happen if they do not have to ask permission (or do things different than the previous baton passers). There are as many leaders, in my experience, at this level, that should not be given any more ownership than is needed to make a connection to their stakeholders.
Best quote from one of these people in my career, “Having been around here for 30 years I ought to know how things are done.” Ha. And having been around here for 30 days (or maybe 30 minutes) I can tell you how things SHOULD not be done anymore…
Champions
These are the people itching to further their career. Give them anything to own and they will take it. Whether or not the first person to coin this term did this on purpose I’m not sure, but it would have been a good move if you thought change was about urgency and energy. The people who get the title champion have both. And they can often create both in others.
Or not.
You can’t just say someone is a champion of anything. Think sports. The equivalent corporate- champion-crowning is the 5 year old soccer team where EVERYONE gets a trophy, because they are ALL champions.
If you have a scenario where the owner gets it and is present, mid level leaders can have the end state make sense from their functional perspective (and that translates well into participation in a bigger picture effort) then champions are just awesome to have- especially the ones who can own and lead to pull in the last level of stakeholder.
End stakeholders
Who are ultimately the most important for change. They are the ones who will be doing something different- likely over and over and over (like typing). They must be able to own the connection of work to end state. What they do must be significant in some way. And the rewards for participation, in addition to the knowledge of connection, must be real.
There is a lot of buzz about “ownership of change” this year. It gets quotes because stakeholder ownership is a very contrived term. There are just too many times when the level of ownership on the line, at the and, where the hands on work happens, cannot be much. Looking at the organization from that vantage point I can see how hard it would be to feel ownership to anything. Roll out change as a passage of mini-ownership through multiple layers and you will likely have push back at the end.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management strategy, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
- Be very clear before you start the change journey of the responsibilities of leadership- you will likely have an owner and an implementer. Partner together and pass that type of relationship down the chain. Change fails when no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
- If you are the leader be careful of the you and them perspective- stakeholders see right through a leader who is not personally connected to the change.
- Value expertise- use it, call it out and connect the relationship of talent to successful change. But don’t fake it (see point two).
- Be clear about the differences between project management and change management- PM accomplishes tasks and manages risk, CM works to connect the work of people to end states. Don’t put big picture people on the little stuff and don’t throw the big picture stuff at those managing risk.
- Double your time and dollar estimates- I mean that figuratively (although if you want to take it literally and act on that you might have some pretty successful change- by all measures). Don’t fall prey to any hucksters out there who promises to speed your time to change. It might work for the first round, but the mess will be ugly the second time.
- Change can be, and is when it is thought out and makes sense, positive- be careful of negative, resistance fighting, risk managing approaches to change. There may be times when you have to put the hammer down… that’s different.
- Enjoy the journey- you are, after all, asking that of others.
Leadership, perspective, expertise, CM and PM partnership, time, money, positive and negative must all be looked at before change can begin. Address these seven pointers and you will have a good start toward a successful change effort.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change excercise, change management strategy, Executive, organizational change, PMO, vision to work
 CM must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Time for change management is not just a moment, a day, a week etc. for something to happen. Time is also process. Time is procedure. Time is transition. Time is flexible.
Use of Time
For your organizational change do you use time like the PMO does-likely down to the half day if not hour? Do you use time like your sales team does- by quarter and year? Do you use time like NASA does- I’m kidding, just had to run the full spectrum.
What you want to do is all of the above. Use NASA time (or something more reasonable within a generation) for long term end states. Use that sense of time for your transformational initiative (singular, please don’t tell me you are trying to do more than one at a time). Use the sales version for programs. Use the PMO version for contained projects (I say that because some projects, like IT and HR, need to spread cross functionally and need more than just the PMO) and within all project, programs, initiatives and transformation.
Keep time on your side by only setting in stone those deadline dates you know you can meet. Because your use and perspective of time says something to your stakeholders. Trust and time go together.
Meaning of Time
Time has different meaning in different contexts. The more definitive, at 10:00 on this day this will happen, the more task oriented. But also less flexible. Help your stakeholders to understand when time aligns with task, when it aligns with process and when it aligns with the future. Get them all to connect and the meaning of time can be flexible and definitive.
Announcement of Times
As soon as you announce time, unless you have pursued times meaning within your organization, you effect the change process. If that date is well thought out, backed by gathering of expertise, supported by a budget and realistic (keeping in mind people and the way they jump in and jump out of change) then announcements of time can be powerful. Live up to the date, live up to the promise and, even better, do it together as a talented organization and you will arrive at end states. And be able to do it again the next time.
Time can be about tasks, time can be about operations, time can be about long term strategy and end states. Know the difference. Communicate the difference. Leverage the difference so that when you do pick exact times your pick of time sticks. Do so a few times and you will give yourself the flexibility to have time frames. Your change will arrive just in time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Context, organizational change, strategy
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
At some point things will really pick up (they are slowly moving now) in terms of change roles, strategy and innovation (which is the precursor for strategy and the need for strategic resources). I think late 2012, possibly after the US elections , will be that time.
- At least for senior change practitioners I think we will see demand quickly outstrip supply. Consultants are often on one year to two year engagements now. Each time one of those engagements starts someone is off the market. The supply can run out fast.
- At that point mid level consultants are going to begin to question the need for third parties and raise their rates. When clients feel their margins hit they will look to contract directly with consultants to slow that process. At the same time third parties will begin to get squeezed and consolidate or move on to the next vacuum.
- Negative, resistance fighting change will not be popular.
- Templated change will follow strategy (or clients will be talked out of the purchase and customize their own change).
- Change management will break out of its infancy and become more sophisticated. Understanding motivators and expectations will rank high on the CM competency list.
- Change management consultants, external and internal, will be expected to mentor others.
- The differences between strategic and tactical change will be called out by thought leaders and understood by organizational leaders.
Some signs that things are changing:
- Rates are rising quickly
- Clients are asking for ASAP availability (and actually speeding up their processes to make sure they get the right talent fast)
- Old roles from 2011 are reappearing (with rates 30 – 40% higher)
- Those same roles, even with the raised rates are going unfilled
- Clients are making contacts directly with consultants
- The big consulting firms are posting, and calling about, sub contracting roles (the step that occurs before they begin to fill their stable again)
- I can vouch for a big increase in blog traffic with longer average time per visit to posts that reflect approach, cost and internal/external discussions (that always means hiring will pick up)
I could make a list of things I hope will happen in 2012, all of which would be a return to client consultant direct relationships for both contracting and partnership. I think we have lost that.
Third party (and four and five) arrangements have squeezed client and consultant. When consultants must hustle roles the instant they finish a previous engagement (because they are barely compensated more than employees [who have also had a major hit to compensation in the last few years]) there is no time for the kind of thought, education and skill building that make them so valuable. When clients must refill roles (which rarely happens in direct relationships) they spend (for the right consultant who will now charge, if they are smart, a premium for the client mistake of bringing them in late) everything they saved and more.
Constriction, sometimes euphemistically called “cost savings” eventually has significant and costly (to steal the word) effects. We will see some of those surface in 2012. If the constriction lasts longer we will begin to see an erosion in competency, innovation and ability to change smoothly and “quickly”. I am rooting for the turnabout soon.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management consultant, organizational change, strategy
When it comes to change management and work in general in organizations there is a lot more going on than the definition reveals:
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
2: capacity for belief <strains her reader’s credibility — Times Literary Supplement>
If we assume credibility is necessary to move change forward the Websters’ definition tells us there must be the capacity for belief for stakeholders and an inspiration for belief from something (that something carries a scale to measure the quality of the inspiration).
Belief
Certainly helps for participation.
The full-bore-excited-champion of the change likely has a strong belief they are doing the right things for the right reasons. If you put all the stakeholders in a spreadsheet and ordered them by participation level, again its likely that belief is a corresponding measure. If something makes sense (my core approach to change) then people will believe in it. So we might be able to say belief, to some extent, is essential for change.
As stakeholders it may not be possible to build that belief individually. You may need facts. You may need support. You may need a leader- someone who can inspire belief.
It may be important though for us to have the capacity to believe. Or at least the ability to believe within the current scenario matched up against the change.
This is the typical entry point for a change management consultant. History, track records and perception must be considered in developing an explanation, guiding leaders and building the capacity to believe. At the same time CM’s are building the competency to inspire belief.
Some separate thoughts:
There are times when a leader is a charismatic powerful conduit for belief. That’s good (unless they are serving Kool-Aid with the inspiration).
There are times when stakeholders just want to believe. (It only takes one sip of the Kool-Aid to fix misdirected belief though).
There are changes that do not necessarily require belief, and stakeholders who will participate without the power of belief.
I think people want to believe in something. CM’s and internal leaders should understand and language believing in change at a deeper level.
Let’s get back to our word.
“Is this credible.”
“Are they credible.”
“Looking at this change and those guiding it makes me incredulous.” Three random, totally made up quotes, that I am sure I have heard many times.
A little credibility building list for you:
- The change HAS to makes sense.
- The change has to be supported- by leaders, by budget, by timing.
- The change has to be explained and carry real facts (not fudged numbers) to build a foundation for the pragmatics to believe.
- The change has to have emotional appeal (hint: not all changes really do, but at some level they do for individuals- leaders should make that connection and communicate their own emotion).
- As a leader you have to have empathy and you have to do a good job (it is up to you to decide the measure of “good”).
- The organization has to have structure and process that makes it possible to believe in possibility. If it doesn’t then something has to change. P.S.: You can get quick belief with THAT kind of change.
- This is not church- faith will carry you a very short distance.
Change cannot happen without credible leaders, a credible change and systems to support the ability to believe.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
This probably does not need much explanation. I can’t imagine there is anyone, at least here in the US, who is not connected directly with someone who has been laid off, lost their job or had their contract cut short (only to have difficulty in replacing the role). Even those in that lofty 1% have peers with major negative career changes (or in the oft chance that is not the case the same 1% likely had a hand in eliminating jobs).
It is what is. Which ought to be the change management motto.
In order to facilitate change in this stripped environment a few things need to be kept in the forefront:
- There is pain. Obviously anyone you bring on is carrying it with them. Acknowledge that and help them move forward in a positive way. Keep in mind those who stayed are in pain in a different way.
- Which shows itself in a desperate need for trust. Those very executives who let the last group go are now leading the charge with the leftovers (who says those remaining think they were the winners?). If those executives are not personally connected to the change (and clearly accountable for the results) you have a long road ahead of you.
- The internal backlash is to hunker down in your silo and refortify the walls- good luck with Horizontal Change. Someone has to be able to scale the walls to present the Makes Sense change. Ideally that is senior executives, secondarily that is the change management consultant carrying the message, the third option is to leverage the senior leaders within the silo to carry the message. Barring all that some version of collaborative cross functional teamwork needs to appear.
- Everything is virtual and travel budgets went with the layoffs. Now you have to have a local representative when you use awareness and brown bag sessions. Somehow, some way there needs to be actual in person connection. The more horizontal, the more cross functional, the better.
- It is time for ideas. Enough with the “this needs to be done tomorrow approach”. Every deliverable should be questioned for its ability to move things into the future. Every meeting should have a why component (and a hint: the insistence on action steps from meetings is not necessarily productive- especially if you are looking through a long term lens).
- How about some genuine “you did well” at the personal level rewards, kudos and acknowledgements?
Someone, some group of people stripped the human element from careers, jobs and roles. Everything is commoditized in the interest of productivity. Half of your work neighbors seem to have gone missing (and if you look a lot of them are doing better as things pick up- change is good). Change in that environment takes a special kind of tact and knowledge.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, corporate change management, Executive, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance, resistance to change, vision to work
One hundred projects, six programs, multiple initiatives and one major multi-year transformation (not necessarily including all the previous). That is one sample function. Yes I did say function rather than company. One user at the end of the line could potentially be receiving communication from 150+ different sources. This is typical of Fortune 50 firms (and scalable for smaller companies).
Wow. The noise is (must be) deafening.
What to do about this as a leader, a change management consultant or a communications person?
- High level strategic change management
- Communication correctness
- Interactivity
- Media/Medium
High level Strategic Change Management
It seems, lately, to have fallen on the senior change management consultants to call out the silliness of upwards of 100 projects in EACH vertical. As an outsider I see this as a glaring example of the weakness of strategy in most organizations. The amount of projects seems to correlate with the amount of “inclusion” and “collaboration” (two words that mean no one makes decisions because everyone has to agree) within the organization.
A couple of good decisions could cut the number in half.
That would be in a perfect non-existent world. Plan B is to work at the highest levels to clearly understand the difference between a project, a program, an initiative and transformation. Then combine, rename and reduce duplication of effort.
By doing so you have at least begun to remove the Structural Noise.
Communication correctness
Even without the high level fix communication that is going out can be looked at for timing, amount and kind of content, and frequency.
Timing
Announce early how you will communicate and how often. Address leadership communication and broad messages early in your timeline. Separate tracks of communication that are project oriented. Deliver the right communication to the right people at the right time.
Content
Label it with templates (remember the announce how you will communicate- they will know which type of content by the template).
Separate it into categories, bullets or items for easier reception and deeper understanding.
Mix it up. We see, hear, talk, listen, watch. All of those things help us to be aware and understand. Use them advantageously.
Frequency
Don’t let anyone tell you the more communication the better. Even perfect comms. delivered endlessly fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).
The frequency should be enough to get the point across- always introductions to phases, kudos for closure of a milestone and important updates. There are even times when daily updates make sense- say during testing or in situations where there is constant and heavy interaction.
Interactivity
When there is too much noise we have to ignore it. If the noise moves from one spot to another though we suddenly pay attention (however fleeting that attention may be). Make your noise more interesting than others. Use video, use links, use feedback mechanisms, have comment sections, use forums, even relay back in some way water cooler information that would be helpful to all.
Keep in mind this motto (my own). If it moves there has to be a reason (other than beating out the communication competition). We are not talking about PowerPoint animation overload.
Media/Medium
How does it get there? Do these listeners use that medium? I rarely look at videos unless I need to learn something (even then it might be faster to read since videos often have a whole lot of intro and summary fluff). Someone else may choose to never read and always want to watch. Make sure we both can get to your content.
Then there is the media within the medium. Your internet may be the medium and SharePoint your media. If you have used SharePoint you know how quickly the noise gets cranked up. If you create a folder to try to organize the link addresses get miles long. Just make sure once at the landing spot people can find the content.
I consider all of these areas when I am trying to figure out how to conquer client noise. Communication- right amount, to the right place, from the right sender, easy to find, easy to absorb.
Here is a hint though: Develop a voice to voice plan that can spread to add a little insurance.
Socializing is one version. Using champions that people listen to is another. Getting as high up the ladder of leadership for senders is another.
Don’t crank up the noise. That will just irritate your listeners..
Technorati Tags: change communications, change failure, Change Strategy, Communications, corporate change management, corporate strategy, engagement, organizational change
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
