|
|
Things begin to pick up for business (less fear, willingness to spend hoarded cash, new competition appearing from garages- not sure which is the cause, but things are picking up in the change arena) and the revisiting begins. Change anew. Except some of it is the programs that were cancelled a year or more ago. How is restarted change different?
History Doubled
The ability to move change forward is always effected by previous attempts (bad or good). To start something that did not finish on the first attempt is potentially tempting fate. If, in our current case, the economy can be blamed for the earlier stop, starting again just slots right into the business environment.
Care must be taken with communication for a restart because, excuses aside, a mistake was made. Sure, as a leader you do not think so – it was all part of the plan. The problem is to stakeholders it must not have been a good plan. Now the Pandora’s box of trust, faith in leaders (which is a specific kind of trust), I told you so’s and the appearance of mishaps is opened.
Address the double history issue with crystal clear as transparent as possible communications. You might want to recheck and possibly rethink the new plan- the last thing you want is two historical mishaps.
Second Chances
Everybody believes in second chances. You have one if you are restarting change. Some of your work may already be completed. Redo work can be done better. Mistakes can be corrected. And acknowledged. Which leads me to the “be careful”.
By necessity taking this second chance is assuming empathy. There is a difference between restarted change and any other- the empathy has to flow from the stakeholders to the leaders. Empathy should (I always hesitate to use this word, but it fits now) go from leaders to stakeholders, that is a given. To go both ways sets up an interesting dynamic. Maybe I should have said an effective dynamic because the core of relationships connected to accomplishments is shared empathy. Give it a double dose on your second chance restarts.
Rebuilding is impressive
Taking what you have, envisioning something different and better and then layering in additions is smart change. As with any remodel matching the old lines to the new can be difficult. Because that is an obvious component of rebuilding/remodeling everyone is impressed when the result is seamless. With your restart this is an opening for a view of the end state that includes overcoming and tackling obstacles.
For that to make sense as an explanation there must be honesty, transparency and camaraderie around stops and starts and the end states they can create.
With that you can restart and rebuild at the same time.
I came across a post the other day that said getting stakeholders to use new technology meant addressing their own self interest http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-manager/?p=3976. The post is on the right track. IT implementations are, admittedly, a specific type of change. Every form of change has a “punch a different key” aspect and IT change rarely stays confined in a nice manageable timeline. So lets look at self interest as a general perspective.
Well, of course
Everything we do is in our own self interest. The more we need to change the more our self interest comes into play. We balance need for action against willingness to act. We place ourselves inside the change to see if there is a fit. We watch those around us to see how self interest guides them. We measure action against inaction on a self interest scale.
Just another resistance approach?
Something is just not right with this view of change…it feels negative. “No way are they going to do this… because it is not in their own best interests.” I sense the next statement would be, “we need to show them what not changing will look like”. And then you have another approach based on the assumption that people automatically resist.
Self interest is OK
Better we look at self interest as an automatic thing. Better we use it advantageously. What happens as a result of self interest is usually a symptom of something else- especially if it is inaction. Is the structure of the organization getting in the way? Has history of botched change put up walls? Is the reward system so based on paying off self interest that participating on a larger scale does not make sense? Is self interest dialed in and out based on functional connection (this I have seen in IT do to the specificity of their roles, but they certainly do not own functional connection)? Is corporate strategy weak and/or short term? Do changes make sense (all the way to the individual level)?
Having asked these questions self interest begins to be a barometer of the effectiveness of the organization and its people. It turns out to be a way to, yes, find out reasons to resist. Addressing those valid reasons is a first step for an effective change approach. Self interest just became OK.
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
As an external consultant there is always a fine line between honoring “the way we do things here” and pushing for and guiding change. Many, if not most, organizations have a tie to processes, structure and communication that is hard to break. Here are some areas to keep in mind in terms of the status quo of cultural loyalty:
Group Think
Group think helps people with consistency, clarity and sameness (which is comforting if you keep your viewpoint narrow). It homogenizes to the point where almost everything is predictable. The longer the tenure for an employee the greater the need to stick to the norms-cultural loyalty.
It is surprising how many times at an individual level cultural loyalty (CL) is questioned. The questioning typically (especially if drawn out by a CM practitioner) produces smart, viable alternatives. If that person does not have authority or leverage those alternatives die quickly.
Internal Politics
Patterns appear over time in organizations that are a direct result of the jostling and wrestling for position by individuals. That positioning tends to work the best when the jostler follows the path of least resistance. That path is the road to the way we do things here. So you end up with a structure that rewards and reinforces the status quo.
Functional Loyalty
The same patterns but much harder to break occur at a functional level. Certain functions tend to have more leverage than others (usually because they bring in revenue which, on the surface at least, makes sense). Those functions then match their group think against others. What you end up with is a secondary level of loyalty to culture-functional loyalty. Which is a synonym for a silo.
Founder(s) Influence
The majority of the time the patterns that replicate within the silos and cultural pods in an organization are the result of the founder(s) initial vision, values and business direction. Emulating that package tends to move individuals up the ladder. The more that spreads the more group think builds and the harder to break the way we do things becomes. Another secondary level exists here when the organization gets big enough for the functional leaders to steer their own vision and approach.
Guiding change at the transformational/horizontal level requires the ability to frame the “make sense” communication in order to replace the CL that is holding back change and growth. In my own practice I have found that I must take the difficult step of working with leaders to tweak structure and process before trying to touch cultural and functional loyalty. The same pattern happens with the change process itself. Often there are underlying structural and process weaknesses that will make complete fulfillment of the end state close to impossible.
The fine line approach is to draw out the CL that makes collaboration, negotiating and compromise possible.
When it exists is like a sponge. It pulls in until it fills to capacity.
This is something to consider, leverage and acknowledge for change management. It is not necessarily something to be fed and nurtured.
What is Loyalty in the context of change management?
Loyalty to the cause
This is a connection to the core purpose of the change that creates interest, motivation and action. A technologist may quickly be on board for an IT implementation (or not of course). Someone sitting in HR may jump right on board for a human capital initiative. A senior executive may pencil in more and more free space on their calendar for dialogue and exchange for a program that touches their function.
Loyalty to the company
This is the version we think of when we see the word loyalty tied to work or workplace. It might infer staying power in terms of retention, it might mean atmosphere and culture, it might mean the tenacity with which people stick to goals/strategy/plans. It might even be the level of evangelism from participants extending outside internal operations-social marketing.
Ongoing connection
Loyalty that is truly strong is ongoing. Loyalty has a distinct time connection and a measure of strength over that time frame. Ideally it is increasing strength-measured differently for each individual and/or stakeholder.
Which brings me to the sponge.
Loyalty has both a pull and a maximum limit. The expectation of loyalty in change management often creates that maximum limit quickly. This is the common pattern of project/change management- shove something in, assume loyalty and get-…wait for it…Resistance.
Thankfully loyalty has a rosy side too. The pull. The more things (our things being change) make sense and connect in some way the smoother and more powerful the pull. Loyalty tends to spread easily once the pull begins. Charismatic leaders can help with the pull- someone has to communicate the “make sense”. The pull tends to produce evangelists who can increase the speed and, at times, the capacity of the pull.
When it is strong loyalty should be acknowledged within the change process. The acknowledgement can be kudos in communications, illustrations of commitment, examples of time saved through dedication and collaboration, etc. This is the right approach for feeding/nurturing/leveraging loyalty.
What does not always makes sense is rewarding loyalty.
Think of the expectations airline miles have created. Think of the backlash about blackout periods. Rewarded loyalty has a scale of expectations that increases quickly which decreases loyalty if not continuously fed.
Loyalty’s dark side is group think, retention of the lowest common denominator and potentially reduced innovation. In terms of change management the dark side is models and approaches that make incorrect assumptions or are based on internal best practices. The way we do it, a form of cultural loyalty, may not always be the most efficient or effective (effective adding a human capital component).
Keeping all this in mind, change management can build loyalty by rewarding skill and showing how that skill connects to end states and the health of the change entity. If compensation structures do the same bonuses can be added that tie to change participation.
Kudos always work. They work because they are after the fact and specific. Incentives are the opposite, before and general. They do not work so well because of the expectations they create.
When it comes to loyalty, specifically reward rather than generally encourage.
Not the best of situations, but common, especially for smaller technology implementations. Don’t despair, change management can always be weaved in to project work. Here are some general areas to address-
Awareness
Of two types- illustrating the connection of individual work, task and effort to the overall goals (best end state) of the project and showing an understanding of the difficulties of change. What is the true intent of this project? Starting with effect on you, what are the things that will happen that slow your regular work down, bother you or force you to look at things differently? As the “overlapped” CM, address those in your interaction and communication.
Skills and Competencies
Put extra effort into making sure that the work for the project is given to the person best suited for the role. Each time you get a precise fit acknowledge that expertise in the individual. You can do that personally and/or include kudos in your communications.
The effect of the organization
Your company will have guidelines, measurement and processes that will inevitably get in the way of change. Each of those will be owned, have been designed by (or both) a person. They will be a stumbling block for you unless the change can make sense to them in some way. Take the time to connect and find that sensibility.
The effect of the culture
As with organizational processes there will be certain ways to get things done. Those “ways” will not be written down. If you are an employee they will be engrained in your approach to work. If you are an employee they could be invisible to you or you might acknowledge them and think they are no big deal. They are.
When it comes to culture you have to walk a fine line between getting things done (if it is change it is new and it probably does not fit into the old mold) and honoring. You will have to show how to do things differently thus skirting cultural issues. Or you will have to call out those patterns and get consensus on trying things differently. Or you will simply have to honor them and double your time frames.
If you are puzzled by this change management thing, but placed in a position to either be responsible for it or feel the need to layer it in keep this in mind in your approach-
Change means something new; new means doing things differently; guide stakeholders through that. Use yourself as a model and you will make a difference in the transition for the people involved and your business.
- Ramp up the urgency
- Grab some like minded people to help out
- Now create a vision/story that will increase the tension… I mean urgency
- Start talking, start convincing and start bargaining if necessary
- Put some people in charge- in fact hold them accountable NOW
- You might want to consider some short term wins since you are so far into this
- Give 110%. With enough force you can get a square peg in a round hole
- Now glue it all together to form a new legacy
Just a few comments-
This is actually out of order. The last thing you want to do is follow this in order. In case you missed that- It does not have to be in this order. You will probably benefit from moving that urgency part down to the middle where, in a reasonable change effort things make sense, money is there and the people with the competency are in the right place. Then the urgency is to actually get the pieces of the process accomplished.
Why, exactly would you wait until the sixth step for a win? Any kind of a win even a short one. Why not make the first step solid corporate strategy? Believe me letting change come from that will be a BIG win.
The gathering of information to get to a description of the end state would follow.Urgency and vision close to each other is sure to get snickers from those who have seen it before.
Communicating to get buy-in sounds a little like an expensive TV ad. If you need “buy in” you either have weak change or weak leaders. Yes you will need to explain the sensibility of the change and illustrate your command of the upcoming process. Do that and you will have participation with motivation.
Never let up on your focus on tying context of work into the big picture. Never let up on illustrating all of the pieces, all of the timing, all of the successes and all of the changes of direction.
If you have to make it stick you might want to rethink your eight steps…
Good start. The primary competency of a change management consultant, I am beginning to think, is anticipation. Or ,so you do not confuse this with some fight or flight tendency (also well honed in CM practitioners) intuition might be a better word. We can tell you what will happen as each little action reverberates across the change web. We have probably seen something like this before, people are people and because of that, mistakes are consistently repeated from organization to organization and person to person.
Odds are you are not thinking of:
- How your assumptions effect your approach
- The true effect the change will have on operational efficiency
- The true effect operations will have on the path to the end state
- Importance of placement of change process- usually too low in organization
- Importance of timing of CM- usually too late
- The effect of leadership (different than the “importance of”)
- The power of one (how well is your approach going to acknowledge at the individual level)
- Context and big picture- will a stakeholder know where they fit and where you are in the process?
- Your performance system and its stranglehold on change
- Your leaders and their stranglehold on change (see previous bullet- not necessarily their fault)
- How you are dealing with assessment and measurement
- The difference between training and awareness
- Leveraging transformational initiatives for succession and professional development
- Accountability, responsibility and “ownership”
It is a much longer list, but you get the idea. Or do you?
If you really want to “transform” your organization looking at a much bigger picture is essential.
If your approach is the typical one of firing CM into the fray and hoping for little fall out this is an unnecessary list… until the next time you try to make a big change.
In keeping with my practical, as efficient as possible approach, I have to ask Why? Why the push lately for metrics, ROI and just plain justification? Maybe we are on the long tail of the same pattern from HR, OD, Human Capital (did I miss any?)…Somehow there is a group think around the need for metrics for the “people side”.
You would think that is coming from the business focused metrics guided senior executives. Only one snag- from one career and one CM practitioner- in my 13 years working with over 70 firms I have never had a senior leader ask for metrics. And I, wisely I think, do not suggest them.
The last thing I want is for the insufficient CM budget to be stripped further by metrics design and gathering. Although if you are a client reading this a full budget with the opportunity to design the metrics would be nice…
Let’s formulate the front end.
There are two types of CM to consider. One is the kind that gets inserted or overlaid on the project process, the other my horizontal/circular view of change. For mine ongoing operational measures can often be used since large scale transformational change must be weaved into the organizations overall process. For the other the only true measures would be speed to get change accomplished and effectiveness against inevitable slowdown.
Both have problems. It is not fair to use operational metrics when you are mixing in more work and effort. The “more” slows things down while the CM helps get to the new state, but they likely balance out. Speed only works if you have an equal initiative to measure against. Same with facilitating slowdown.
CM at its core is a discipline that helps corral and funnel work and effort toward the accomplishment of a business goal. A good measurement of that would show that less time was spent on understanding, learning, collaborating, dialoguing and planning than would have happened without CM. I personally would value subjective measures taken from stakeholders (senior leaders being part of that category). Surveys and questionnaires can turn those responses into measurements. The ask why approach must be critically evaluated since those tools are favorites of consultants looking to expand their revenue base (and are, apparently, crucial for that group looking to legitimize).
Now my commentary.
If assumptions are wrong, then approaches are tainted, which makes results less than optimal, which begs the question, Why measure a substandard delivery? Previous posts of mine have pushed the idea of separating CM from typical performance measures. This metric group think is a perfect example of the desire to monitor and control, coincidentally one of the foremost roadblocks for change.
This is also another example of pushing CM deeper into the organization since it is analysts that will typically do the work of actual measurement. This is a connection and use of time that is essential to successful CM. The work of connecting to and gathering metrics would (I avoided using will although human nature as it is that is the right word) take away valuable connection time with stakeholders. So it becomes a time issue as well as a money issue-two strikes. And, of course, that time now potentially effects the actual metrics and makes CM look less successful- nice loop.
The number one skill for change management is the ability to truly see things from the perspective of the stakeholder. For a practitioner that means everyone- first day employee to CEO. For an internal change leader that means the same including looking at themselves in a different light (especially the CEO).
What is the stakeholder’s perspective?
That the change is far away, both in time and connection.
That it does not really make sense.
That even if it did the leaders do not really know what they are doing.
That even if they knew what they were doing they would not be able to explain and legitimize the change.
Or,
That this really makes sense, but odds are “they” will blow it
That this really makes sense, but the execution will fail (see last comment).
That this really makes sense, but there is no way they will create the space or have the capacity or capability to make it happen.
That this really makes sense, but they will rush it and cause it to fall apart.
That this really makes sense, but is just too big (or too bold, or too innovative or too different from our culture).
Or,
I could care less it it makes sense or not, I am too busy.
I could care less if it makes sense or not, I hate change.
…I like things the way they are.
…I need to be acknowledged personally before I participate in anything.
The lists go on (and on and on).
What is really happening here though? There is a lot of change going on- always. Since corralling that process 15 years or so ago under the title, “Change Management”, stakeholders have become aware. Thanks to a lot of boxes, steps, circles and comparisons to dying that awareness typically borders on confusion. They have also developed, thanks to ease of information, a keener sense of corporate strategy, the business environment and the success/failure ratio.
It turns out to be able to “see things from the stakeholders perspective” you have to
know what you are doing
do something that truly makes sense
have and display humility
have and use empathy
respect the knowledge and capability of stakeholders (and be able to leverage and reward)
have a process that isn’t just about filling in a timeline
get the first try, or at a least a try, right, to gain traction
and then do it again.
I will leave it up to you to decide who the orangutan is…(leader, project manager, change practitioner, stakeholder etc).
|
|
