|
|
 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
Guiding change in organizations is a little like whipping up a morning smoothie.
Get the right ingredients and it goes down smooth and cool with a sweet aftertaste. Mix in, drop in, splash in one nasty ingredient and your morning and the rest of the day can get unsavory. And you thought I was still talking about the smoothie…
The good stuff in the change blender:
- Social Media
- Computer Based Training (CBT’s)
- A young generation always ready to try
- Leadership (beginning to get this change/people/business thing)
- So much change that is is hard to keep structure together
- So much change that culture is movable (and sometimes even malleable)
Some nasty ingredients to avoid:
- Hanging on to stranded leaders
- Anyone who says, “we have always done it this way”.
- Anyone who does not have “why” in their vocabulary
- Anyone with an empty calendar
- Anything more than single approval
- Third Parties
Lets’ run through these:
Social Media
Is awesome in its ability to gather information, sift it and then dust the filtered (or fixed or solved or answered) results onto the change. Forums, Wiki’s, Blogs, SharePoint and similar tools all help to save time, create collaboration and give visibility to change.
CBT’s
I come from a face to face background- early executive presentation coaching/consulting- and, obviously, as a high level change management consultant benefit every time I am collocated and connecting, but… CBT’s can be an amazing time saver. Since I am a big “why?” person when it comes to any form of disconnect between people using a CBT is a very conscious choice. Technical information, simple instructions, easy task lists can be put into a CBT and as I say, “you bag the easy stuff”. Ideally you just freed up time for the genuinely needed in person work and you prepared the stakeholders for better engagement and learning.
Switch the order too for a different kind of effectiveness- in person work then CBT’s to reinforce (with a better understanding of big picture).
Youth
I changed this from the younger generation to youth. Because this is really about an attitude and approach to life. The less you have seen the easier it is to fly out of bed in the morning. As you get older, chronologically, it gets harder and harder to set aside the bad examples and bad influences. So youth is an approach.
If you choose to be receptive to change (not saying you have to accept it unless it makes sense) you can live like a 25 year old. A 25 year old can get frustrated with obstacles. If you are older than that and step lightly around those roadblocks you can at least do the SKIP out of bed.
Leadership
The good kind.
The kind where change is acknowledged as a sometimes difficult process. A process that ties people (or not) to what is important to them. That plays out in many ways- enjoying work, wanting to be part of the bigger picture, cash, kudos and camaraderie.
Also the kind that treads lightly, but firmly, on the idea that work and jobs and careers are an equation of doing something (well hopefully) and getting paid for it. Leadership should never forget this. Done well, neither will stakeholders.
Structure
Companies seem to be in a once a year organizational design cycle. Which, of course, is ridiculous. In some ways though that is helpful for change management. It means individual power silos are hard to create. It means everyone must constantly be learning. It means that those individuals who are “problems” start to get called out (and in a perfect world do not make the cut at some point for a new structure).
Culture
Short status quo periods can really help CM.
Change grows and thrives when you feed it with new. (I hesitate to use a political example, but look at the side in the US that wants less and less change- just keep it simple… anyone making more money now doing the same thing as 10 years ago as a result of that simplicity?).
When culture gets stirred up people must collaborate. They must try to find compromise. And they must find ways to make hard decisions that are not compromise (hint bargaining, negotiating and shared ownership of solutions).
Stranded Leaders
Grab an org. chart and see if you can find the executive with only a couple (or, shudder, no) reports. They are either at the tail end of a perfectly executed succession plan (hint that is a fantasy) OR they have been stranded over time. There is no telling what someone will do when they are deserted and ostracized. The effect can make for a nasty change smoothie.
Always been this way
Which is exactly why it is being changed now.
Point made.
Why?
If you do not know how to ask this question and figure out how to get the answer then you will not be able to change. If you are a leader lacking this competency (not sure how you got where you are without it) then it must be difficult to get anyone to accomplish anything.
To not be able to answer why for stakeholders is inexcusable (but, unfortunately only too common).
Empty Calendars
In my first reach out waves to stakeholders at all levels of the organization I always notice calendars. The empty ones stand out. Especially if this leader is going to be the one to help pass out the smoothie in their function.
NO ONE has an empty calendar.
I do not even have an empty calendar at the end of the first day of an engagement.
Empty calendars are bitter ingredients.
Approvals
One please.
A few more discerning eyes if you want.
Just not a committee.
Approvals are like big chunks of ice in the smoothie. They ruin the texture, freeze things up and eventually, after a wait, completely water down the mix.
Third Parties
First disclosure: I have an S Corp, Vision to Work, and so have the capacity, and use it, to bring in sub contractors for specialized work. In those cases I am a third party (in case you have not read my stuff before, the first party is the client, the second the person delivering anyone EXTRA is a third, fourth etc. That looks backwards I know, but think about it…).
The third parties I am talking about are the fly by night sourcing firms that pop up all over the place. They really, really get in the way of the contracting process- both the compensation and the agreement between client and deliverer. Use them for true deliverable based contracting. Do not put them in the way for true consulting.
So there is your change smoothie- stuff to put in, stuff to keep out.
Technorati Tags: change failure, Communication, Context, corporate change management, engagement, organizational change, stakeholders
Look around your office. Does it look like people are there to stay? Transient? Walled in? Who comes in early? “Late”?
Many things feed in to the ability or inability to participate in change. Work Style is a big one. This is also an element that can slow work down operationally too.
- Environment
- Space
- Work from home options
- Consultants/External Resources
- Virtual/Global
Environment
First there is the overall environment. Do you have a culture of cooperation and collaboration, or something else? Do you have a high walled cubicle environment or an open be-able-to-see-across-the-room space? Are there landing spots for creative/planning work? Do you have telephone rooms (dinky rooms for one person to make calls in private)? Yes or No to any question dictates work style.
People may work for your organization because of the type of culture you have. Some like to be at the office for long periods of time. They will gravitate to the type of industry that expects that. What I am asking you to consider is the number of people who are out of there element with any environmental, reporting and in site requirements you may have (as an organization or as a leader).
Space
This one fascinates me.
I have worked in some context in 70 different organizations. Seventy environments. Seventy sets of “when you need to be there and when you do not”. Multiply that out by the number of employee spaces I saw. Big number. Like personalities and faces no two are alike.
For some the trinket, knick knack level around them exceeds my 10 year old girls room (there is something quaint and comfortable about both). With a peek you can tell where they vacation, what sports team they root for, whether they are practical or mystical.
The most fascinating to me are the spaces with a clear work area and tchotchkes galore all around. This is someone who understands the significance of their work, but also realizes they will be in that place many, many hours- they choose to bring some of their other life into that environment.
Work from home options
Some have a clearer space.
Usually those are the ones who prefer to be at the office for face to face communication. They spend much less time at their desk. (Some organizations have no defined individual spaces, or very few, Cisco would be my first example. Interesting: the assistants to the executives do and their desks become gathering spots).
Many change initiatives add work from home. That is a huge behavioral switch, especially if forced on those with the trinkets.
I am in the “be at the office for face to face communication” mix. My own perfect schedule is 6 hours or so on site 3 or 4 days a week (ideally with 2 or 3 clients). I get some strange reactions from the park at the office people when I show up at 6 am one day and 12 pm the next. Thanks to my work at home ability those days are all still 10 – 12 hours of work. Take a breath the next time you think someone’s contribution should be measured by the time they are parked on site.
Consultants/External Resources
Which leads me to consultants and external resources.
I myself have worked in windowless basements many times. High walled cubicles the same. Not my choice for a conducive work environment (even if I bring my knick knacks). On site is for face to face (in my world). At one recent client I went two weeks without a single conversation. No not because I did not reach out (they were actually heavily monitoring that- RIF and HR). No one else was talking to each other either. Ten hour days they put in though…
Back to those consultants. They, if they are true consultants and not rent an employee contractors, have there own businesses. To give you what a consultants should bring they need multiple environments, different types of organizations- comparisons to yours- in order to make strong recommendations. What you should measure them on is not hours and time on site, but the things you end up being able to do because they are there. Collaboration change? That could be a fast goose of connection from the external (no deliverables there either). Increased capability of middle managers? Again, not necessarily a lot of time (quality time though) or deliverables.
So a few things here: Give them a good spot and you might see them more. Measure on time and presence and you will see them less (and likely lose the best of them). Make an effort to have the right people available for collocated time. Gather meeting members in the same spot to facilitate discussion and team work.
Virtual/Global
Unless of course you are a mostly virtual and/or global organization.
The more your work is conducted online and over the phone the less it makes sense to be at a spot. An interesting version of this is IBM with almost everyone working from their home, but a whole bunch of small offices to use.
I have had quite a few situations where I am on the phone all day with no face to face interaction, but for some strange reason the client has an expectation of face time (even though that rarely happens- you can schedule meetings for that…).
And finally the funniest and strangest of all- people on the phone, in the same area, for the same meeting with tons of rooms available. This can get so bad that the phones echo off of each other (VOIP lines). I find myself constantly turning down the headset volume and just listening to them talk right next to me. I get this, they are hunting and pecking away while “listening” to try to get their own work done (too many meetings is part of this- a different blog post), but it is fodder for late night comedy.
Change is fed, and halted, by many things. Environment and individual space need to be considered with every initiative, especially if the change itself will upset stakeholders comfort level.
Technorati Tags: C level, change awareness, change excercise, change management strategy, Change Strategy, collaboration, Collocation, engagement, External Consultant, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders, virtual teams, virtual work
Answering Why is the most important component of change.
Understanding the answer involves those recommending and those receiving. A little hint: the first group is part of the second group, yet they (and project teams) seem to forget that. The answer must make sense. It must make sense enough for the “recommenders” to not have to constantly defend. It must make sense for the receivers to participate. It is a two way street and the answer must address that. When it does not, change begins to fail. When a change model or approach does not integrate this?…
- Reason
- Business “Case”
- People Connection
- Implications
Reason
This is the background for an actual explanation/answer.
This is the things that led up to this idea and the decision to pursue it. Was it the business environment? Regulation? Competition? Just a great idea? Or, let’s be honest (and if you are you will not actually be able to answer the Why questions) on a whim by senior executives, or “something to try” or a vagary from a founder over his/her head?
Without a good reason and an explanation and understanding of it the translation to a Why answer will be difficult. It is that difficulty that causes a one way push reasoning.
Business “Case”
Not to worry though, because we have the Business Case answer.
If this is the only answer, you have completely missed the people connection to change (and do not understand the process as a whole and will, likely, have some version of failure). The business case is half of the answer.
So yes do have your graphs, your charts, your numbers, your predictions by experts, all of your business justification. You would be wise to screen all that for individual political agendas, questionable numbers and automatic assumptions. Why? Because that is the first thing your stakeholders (the receivers) will do. Fair warning, they are much better at this than you are.
People Connection
Because they are the People who are asked to do things (sometimes blindly- actually mostly blind).
The people connection is an awareness that people participate, are motivated and look to move from status quo to something different for multiple reasons.
- The 5 W’s- where, what, when, who and our Why.
- Blind allegiance (which in fairness still needs some why answer).
- Disciplined (and I don’t mean that in the “nice” way).
- The ramifications of the 5 W’s (participating with others, new rewards, a change of work pattern, opportunity, frustration with status quo etc.).
The answer to why will be specific to any of these or a mix. That answer will, at some point, have documentation so stakeholders can read (or better look and read) at their own speed when they are ready (and multiple times if that is needed).
Implications
The word used more often is “impact”.
Impact feels like the stakeholders perception of good and bad in relation to the answer. If you use the word impact it seems you are assuming the negatives and transmitting that sense to the receivers- not a good way to start your change process. So I am going with implications.
What might this mean? Early on this is hypothetical, you may not want to include it in any explanation just have it in the back of your mind to understand possible reactions from stakeholders. If you are thinking in terms of the 5 W’s you will have a sense of the implications.
As you move past first stages of figuring out end state descriptions, the why explanation, you can address more specific implications. To spend much time on them early is effectively setting yourself up for why coming back to you as, “why Would we do this”. That is an entirely different why question that puts the recommender on the defensive.
The biggest mistake most change management makes is to not have a why answer (that is a version of the end state description) or worse answering “Why?” with a response that sounds like a parent addressing a child. Most of the heavily marketed “turn key” change management models out there set up the parent/child answer to be carried all the way through the change process. With the same kind of results.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, Change Design, Change Strategy, Communications, organizational change, resistance, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision
A pinch hitter is brought in to change the nature of the game, to grab/shift momentum, to hit the big home run. Is this an analogy for an external change management consultant?
Someone found my blog with the Bing search, “pinch hit external consultants when needed for organizational change”. That got me thinking…
It depends on what you feel the pinch hitter is responsible for and so it depends on what you think change management is and does.
If you think of CM as something that layers over your projects and gets them to move a little better then your pinch hitting consultant (who is just as likely internal as external) goes for the bunt. Move the runners, change the momentum, catch the other team off guard.
If you think of CM as a broad, horizontal, likely organization wide, umbrella that helps to move everything forward (sometimes fast sometimes slow) your pinch hitting consultant is (or at least should be) external and your best case scenario is for them to hit a home run.
Keep in mind, you get to, in baseball (and also in contracting for a consultant) keep them in the game. (They are, at least in baseball, replacing someone, which can have its advantages). Call the home run, or the bunt that does not actually win the game but pushes it in a better direction, the “quick win”.
The way that player operates throughout the rest of the game might just dictate the outcome. They certainly have a chance to have an impact on the players. If they have managed this save, game changing, tweak to momentum before, and the players know it, energy and motivation can turn on a dime. Tied to CM for our analogy that equates to calling out the role of the CM, making them visible and giving them the flexibility and access to be available to make things that do not seem to be happening now happen.
An external consultant as a pinch hitter for change is the one who comes in early to influence the nature of the environment and stays to effect motivation, participation and, eventually the final score.
The pinch hitter analogy for change management is a good one if you are not thinking that the external consultant is there to bunt and get out of the game. It works if you do not think that the CM comes in and hits a home run to finish the whole thing off. Change management has a long timeline from idea to post adoption. It pays to keep that in mind. Don’t wait until the game is almost lost to use your external pinch hitter.
Technorati Tags: change management, External Consultant, organizational change, pinch hitter, project management, quick wins
|
|
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.
