|
|
I predict, thanks to reduction of employees, belt tightening and the effects of the economy a new obstacle for change- Apathy.
We are creeping up on an interesting flux period for organizations. Those who remain have lived in fear of losing their positions, have seen their work loads increase geometrically and are now years into seeing career paths disappear in front of their eyes. If they were “lucky” enough to remain they may also harbor guilt over “surviving”.
Those who were laid off, furloughed, trimmed, hacked (pick your synonym) are carrying bitterness over plans delayed (or destroyed). They have also had time to look at their situations and perhaps question the value of the “security” (I always say false- this environment supports my point) of full time employment.
Sometime soon the economy will pick up (and there are signs now).
We will have a mix of worn out and therefore apathetic current and incoming employees. Because many of the potential incoming individuals may well have gone their own way the pool might just be diminished. Which opens a window for those who stayed. Quitting is an instant fix for apathy. Finding a better position is a solution to that apathy. Demanding more to compensate for lack of security another.
Take heart though leaders of change. The step after this flux is a healthy energy partly from relief and partly to ensure individual survival the next time around.
I have touched on this before. The revisit is because one it is hitting me personally (stakeholders I feel your angst) and two it just hits home for what I think is the core problem in a lot of change initiatives- Assumptions.
There are so many things in life that to understand, follow through with or participate in require shared understanding. With the need for speed in shared understanding comes assumptions. If we start “from the same spot” we can move forward faster. If you already know something at a certain level I can then teach you the next step. The person or entity represented by that person that delivers must gauge the assumptive area. Two problems with that- One you must be aware of the fact that you have to gauge and two you must be good at it. Watch a good change practitioner and you will see expert in action in this area. I would venture to say it is THE core competency (I say competency because it usually requires a mix of specific skills) of a change management consultant.
So I will use CSS as my example.
I will not even try to explain this. Search “web design, float, relative, absolute” or “box model CSS” or “normal document flow” if you want to play with this example yourself. Normal Document Flow (in caps because it is apparently something really important and lets use NDF and make it something official) is our assumption. It has a lot to do with where something is supposed to be, things taking the place of that thing when you tell it to be somewhere else and people (and browsers) constantly changing the display parameters with their individual preference, software and hardware. Read that last sentence again. ‘Sound like a generic sentence for most business change?
If I am on the receiving end of this, the user, your NDF means absolutely nothing to me- by definition or importance.
If you have asked me to create this and I have always been quick with a pencil and napkin (or design software in this specific case) then not only is it hard to understand your NDF it seems a ridiculously slow way to get things done.
If the “you” person has helped in the design of this CSS thing- for many good reasons like SEO, cleaner code and that compatibility thing mentioned above- NDF is pretty important. It is the basis for a lot of the reasons the web is used. You get that.
Let’s say you are the leader in this grand NDF initiative, multiple year because it is complicated. If you do not clear the assumptions about flow (linear) and use (tactical) and creation (spatial and visual) George Washington, Lincoln and yes, many Wilson bills are going to change hands needlessly (for you, maybe not them- depending on who you chose as your consultants). You must be aware, or made aware, from the beginning ,that this assumption will be important. You must find a quiet place alone or with others to figure out how to gauge and then address knowledge, perspective and interest to learn (which then translates into participate and engage).
Here is an interesting tie to our analogy- When a demo online or a training video shows examples of “ways to position things” for CSS and somehow avoids the use of NDF as a term or assumption I get close to getting it. For the CSS person it has been “dumbed down”. For me it is using my languaging and learning style. Constantly refer to NDF and where something “would normally be” and you lose me. Another post right in this paragraph about how you move forward after you tackle the assumptions…
I have been doing some web work redesign and am officially feeling the pain that many of the stakeholders I work with go through. Web pages are now designed around CSS which is a linear process. I do mockups and graphic design work with Fireworks which works on a spatial/visual platform. I can mock up a web site in a couple of hours. I have spent days (Ok actually more than that) trying to figure out and understand CSS. System oriented focus that I have I wonder why the process can not be WSIWYG. And I feel for you stakeholders. My feet are dug in the sand for this new learning which is making getting to my end state exceedingly difficult.
Lets look at this like a mini behavior change problem.
Because of a “new” technology I am forced to do things differently which slows me down and eventually frustrates me. The new technology approaches work in a linear way. I am a visual spatial learner so even if an expert were to help me I would have serious difficulties understanding and using the needed approach. To get to what I do well and enjoy more (writing and making that available through the website) I must pass this gate. Just like many of the stakeholders out there passing through their own gates of change.
Here is the connection though. The ultimate end state, visibility and availability for my knowledge and prose, is crucial to my future and my work. The change facilitator in me must find a way to place significance on the CSS phase in relation to my end state. That is the context to Big Picture loop I constantly reinforce here. The connection is search optimization. CSS works much better than the image versions I create in Fireworks.
So perhaps the change facilitator in me finds a way to see the reasoning behind SEO to loop back to CSS. The “got you to participate” link for me with behavioral change is the Why of my 5 W’s. The why now makes sense and might just be powerful enough to overcome my resistance.
Have you every done the kid safety drill?
You know, the one where you get down on the ground and crawl around looking for potential danger? Of course, kid that I am at heart, I rolled, slid and somersaulted too…
The world is entirely different down there.
That, for awhile anyway, is the world of a toddler.
The people side of change has danger (real or imagined), hidden obstacles, an intense right in front focus, movement similar to a crawl (for its snail like pace) and an overall obliviousness to the presence of anything on this list. A good change agent does multiple versions of the hidden danger exercise. He/she must look from the perspective of a distracted and singularly focused child and from the adult who sees clearly the danger. Somewhere in between is the positive, practical, realistic description of the environment. There could very well be a different description for each person/stakeholder. The exercise might even change for a group of stakeholders. Think about a group of children crawling on that floor-different environment, especially if a few get ahead and stand up…
In keeping with our analogy-
If you think you will be able to corral that kid/stakeholder away from the danger (distract, keep busy, drag, pull, push, order…) then you are either very confident in your abilities or opening yourself up for the result. In the change process that result is projects that get delayed (should have fixed that outlet first), quality that deteriorates, stubbornness (which either increases the danger or leads to apathy-yes even with that kid on the ground) and rebellion (obvious with the kid, subtle and detrimental to the organization and culture for the stakeholder).
As the executive for an initiative you would do well to run this exercise of perspective through you head on your own before and after expecting it of your change agents. Get good at it and you will be able to fix danger early if it is real or call it out for what it often is- fear of the unknown. Right back to your role of describing end states and the journey/environment to get there.
In a previous “life” I was a rafting guide.
I used to marvel at the patterns that took place in the flow of the river. There was always a path where the water moved the swiftest and the smoothest. When it encountered the resistance of rock or sand bar it would move over the top if powerful enough or deflect into the path of less resistance.
Guides usually choose to follow that least resistant path. Most of the time I was no different. Occasionally though, on contemplative or mischievous days, I would seek the eddies, the slower running channels and choose a bounce or two here and there off the obstacles.
The eddies with guide oar in the swirl were a chance to hold still in the middle of the awesome power and pull of the river to look forward and to look back. The stall gave time to plan. The next run was always more interesting/successful.
Obstacle bounces (assuming they were not misguided slams into big rocks ending in a “wrap” of the boat) forced a view from a different angle- often backwards.
What does this have to do with change management?
Plenty since the flow of the river -is the inexorable movement of an initiative forward.
The rocks- stakeholders not included, considered, motivated to participate
The eddies- those rare chances within an initiative to hold still to gauge success and plan the immediate path ahead
The oar in the eddy- the external consultant standing in the middle of it all preparing to pivot and leverage to the correct path
The patterns of the water- the people interacting, collaborating, moving in unison and against
Change does not always need to follow the path of least resistance. It can meet obstacles and pass them through subtle changes in the contour of the path. Call those changes the new behaviors of the stakeholders. Call the new path the organizations adaptation to the initiative and the change.
A few of the rivers I guided were flow controlled- meaning a rate was chosen early in the day that was practical and fed the ecology of the river. We knew the number ahead of time. The experienced guides knew exactly what to expect. They knew where the obstacles were, how obtrusive they were and the cleanest path between them. That path could always be repeated with the same flow number. Changes were measured in seasons rather than days.
As it can be with well thought out, empathetic and smart business change initiatives.
One drop on still water…
An expert change agent can tell you what will happen when you drop that drip in your organization. The drop can be an idea, a potential innovation or an external event. The drip can be old systems, overstaffing, economic downturn or falling revenue. The waves can be re-structuring, re-building, organizational redesign or potential growth opportunity, a hot product, a merger or an acquisition.
Rather than think of the rollout to an end state as a linear, chronological move from to do to task to phase to completion (or adoption) it is beneficial to go through an exercise that focuses on change radiating from the center and progressing in waves outward. Ideally they are smooth, but thought must be put into the potential explosive “nuclear” effect of that drop or drip.
Each wave will pick up small minute waves and become bigger and stronger. That can be to your advantage if those small waves represent the energy of an individual. The key to guiding change is to know where those little bursts can come from- the realm of the partnership of the change agent and the buyer/sponsor.
Each successive wave could be a function which might translate to project streams or they could be, again invisible or small, horizontal connections in your organization- the remnants of previous collaboration across functions. Those waves may, at times, encounter a shore. Organizationally that might be an external connection (partners, supplies etc) or it could be resistance or risk. That land will slow the outward movement. A map ahead of time creates the opportunity to take advantage of the energy slow down to rebuild momentum in passing.
Ideally all the energy moves to the narrow inlet of the harbor passes with power and ends up peacefully on the shore.
Let’s say you are the executive that is in tune with both people and business.
You have had corporate initiatives that have been successful and a few not so. Because you are wise you see that that the successful initiatives were those where corporate strategy somehow tied neatly into individual and team motivation. And those not so successful were the ones where change was forced and resistance was almost guaranteed.
Success managed motivation. Un-success battled resistance.
Knowing the difference between clarifying the goal and then defining the path versus focusing on the process to change to a future state, you look for a consultant or firm to help with the next success. You look in a few forums, some LinkedIn questions and answers, a few websites, maybe you read a few change management books. And they all seem to have the second of our two perspectives. Why is that?
Internal politics tends tends to tug at change as revenue needs tend to tug at consulting firms. Process and task win out in both cases.
Most change management practitioners are enamored with process. They love to guide stakeholders toward their future state. They love models, theories and their own approaches. Secondary to process they love guiding people. They are not necessarily “people persons” (those lean toward training and communications) but they like the energy of collaboration. These are excellent qualities for the middle of change management. The middle of the organization, the middle of the change process itself and in terms of expertise the middle of the change practitioner skill set.
But you are an executive interested in high level usually transformational change. The type of change that is tied to strategy. That type of change is not typically seeded in the middle of the organization.
For high level strategic change management you need a consultant, yes initially you will benefit from the relationship with a single trusted individual, who is drawn toward business equal to people. Someone who is focused on goals, end states, results before process and task. You realize process and task are learnable while strategic skill is practiced and intuitive. And you have seen initiatives fail because they were wrapped up in the approach of the consulting firm rather than the culture of your organization.
Keep searching.
You are a knowledgeable, astute, ahead of the curve executive. Hold your ground and approach change as a business + people = results equation. Successful change management for the future is the alignment of resources and energy toward a goal. It is not managing the process of changing minds. Like you stakeholders have matured past that. They understand change is inevitable and often beneficial. They do not like it when you force change and they do not like it when you assume change is forced (overcoming resistance). What they do like are leaders who are clear about direction, choose the right path and articulate the goal. Getting there is actually the easy part.
But you knew all that right?
Sorry to shout.
What about those stakeholders that really do RESIST?
Granted this does and will happen. I have never seen a situation where that resistance did not make sense (once I dug a little deeper). Clarity here- from the stakeholders perspective.
It can come from previous bad experiences.
It can come from politics and ownership.
It most certainly comes from the way the organization rewards-based on operation rather than change. It can come from a comfort level that will be soon uncomfortable.
It can come from the status quo change approach that expects resistance and cheerleads urgency.
It can be from a person that is always that way (talk to them first they have valuable insight).
I will raise cackles and say that any show stopping resistance to change is a function of bad change management.
OK your turn to shout…
Ruffle feathers Contrarianism
There is a square peg into a round hole perspective with change management that jumps out of everything I see written.
It is an approach to change that relies on pushing, coaxing, forcing, driving, convincing rather than understanding, leadership, empathy and clearly defined end states. It is a perspective that guides everything that happens in change management and it has worked its way into the executive suite. It is based on two factors straight from Kotter (whose approach has a strangle hold on the change management community and by extension their clients).
Overcoming resistance
Creating urgency
Two of the comments from the McKinsey series of CEO interviews on leading change:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/qnwhn7
Julio Linares says that, for him, the most important and hardest part of the transformation was “to convince people of the need for the program.” (Convince being the polite word for overcoming resistance)
N. R. Narayana Murthy, chairman of the board and former chief executive of India’s Infosys, agrees and says, “The first responsibility of a leader is to create mental energy among people so that they enthusiastically embrace the transformation.” (“Mental energy being a code word for a sense of urgency)
As P&G CEO Alan G. Lafley says, in “Leading change: An interview with the CEO of P&G,” “Excruciating repetition and clarity are important …”(which likely feels excruciating)
And there is more in the story that is guided by the status quo.
- The use of story. I agree great, but after clear end states have been formulated, stakeholder connections have been made and strategy has been clearly connected to. The kid in us responds to stories; the adult responds to connection to something bigger.
- There is clearly a “build the team, make clear responsibilities perspective” and a hierarchical transfer down the chain. Not once is the word “stakeholder” used. Employee is but that has a different meaning.
- Words and phrases like, “getting on board”, “expected”, “undesired behavior”
Where in the process is the connection to stakeholders that defines the end state and therefore creates a picture (not a story) of the change? With that picture individuals (crucial point here since the McKinsey articles insists on teams) effected can place themselves in the change by virtue of their skills, their value to the whole and the rewards and connection they will get from enthusiastic participation.
There is a push pull toward change management between business/people and group/individual. With the status quo business and group overpower the individual and therefore people. To break the status quo would be to show the business connection to the individual which will almost automatically begin to create teams who will then have their own built in urgency to move toward success. A subtle difference in perspective and approach but one that, if adopted by any of those CEO’s would change the semantics, change the energy and change the results (and faster and cheaper).
One of the things I look for with change engagements is whether or not plans, actions, behaviors and approaches are based on assumptions. Yes, of course, always.
As a manager, how do you get your staff to buy-in to a senior management strategy when neither you nor your staff like the strategy?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/melpbe
This question on LinkedIn illustrates a common change obstacle. It has many mini obstacles, but we will take the main one. “Staff” will not support a strategy and their supervisors join in.
The chosen “best” answer is classic. Facilitation, firing, but basically communication is at the core of the problem.
Assumption-
You can guide change by “communicating” and removing resistance.
The best answer was from Ronald Klamert http://preview.tinyurl.com/luqpw5 “You can’t.” Of course you could with a lot of effort, but I like the comical terse answer.
First what does need to happen:
- Lose the resistance assumption. 99% of the time it is justified and for the stakeholder that would be 100%.
- Communication yes but between the executive strategists and employees before the strategy is decided on.
- Model that communication and the middle managers will become facilitators and translators instead of mediators.
- No strategies in a vacuum.
The Why of change comes from a blend of executive idea, early employee engagement (design not implementation) and clear end state descriptions.
So what is wrong with the Best Answer choice?
It has the feel of the typical change management approach- ownership, buy in, communication, reduce resistance.
“Age old question”, age old answer. You cannot communicate resistance away. And you are dreaming to think firing will some how change your culture.
“…process where they arrive at the same conclusion as senior staff.” Maybe just the wording but it sounds to me like senior staff knows the answer before the facilitation and communication. Classic. (take what is bad and make it worse).
Executive notice-
Employees get it. Employees understand change. They are adults. Pay attention. Empathize. Collaborate when appropriate. And as a result make smart decisions about direction. If there is a change component define the end state clearly. In other words translate your idea into scenarios that make sense from the stakeholders perspective. Realize they do not have to follow your lead, but do the above and you will have to catch up to their energy.
|
|
