|
|
Communicating for Change Management serves three purposes- to motivate, to guide and to provide place.
Place
We are going backwards from my list to illustrate a point. Most change management methods, and the consultants who practice them, move forward in time with my list. Not so effective. Not so effective because place gets lost in the mix. “Place” is the work of an individual in relation to the whole. When communicated well each stakeholder can explain how their work fits in to the bigger picture, how it connects to the next person and how it leverages the work of the previous stakeholder. At any given time place could mean a lot of things with a lot of connections. It is up to the change team and its leaders to make those connections make sense.
Guide
Having done the job of placing work at a spot in time, communication must address how the whole process moves forward. Actually processes, because there is the list of things to do, the project management, and there is the transition from the now to the end state. That may mean behavior changes, new or different technology, additional or changed interactions, perspective that is not status quo etc. Change communication must help explain these two processes and connect people, individual stakeholders, to the events along the way both to get the work done and to ground a human connection to what may be overwhelming change.
Motivate
I am guessing the cheerleaders on the sideline have little to do with the effort put forth by the players in the last minutes of the game. Change works the same. Cheering, amping up a sense of urgency, creating tension may start the play (and our change) fast and furious. The shelf life for that effect is short. Motivation, the kind that moves people forward by choice and deep down commitment is the third purpose in line. With place and clear guidance (read reason and a measure of safety/assurance) motivation appears on its own. Communication within the change process then becomes an exercise in illustrating the good, the positive, the examples of overcoming, effectiveness, commitment and extra effort by individuals
As a stakeholder if I cannot explain my exact spot at any given time, if I am not aware of what is to come and what has passed and if I am not given a reason to connect to the change in my own way, change management has failed.
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.
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.
This http://horizontalchange.com/2009/12/dandelions-in-the-lawn-organic-change-management-design/ most popular post so far must strike a nerve. I don’t have the luxury of knowing who or what type of person links to it, but the numbers most likely make it a range. Interested because you are stuck in a field of organic change? Interested because you are worn down by stagnancy? Think that if the ground swells someone above might pay attention? Or just like it when the pot gets stirred?
So lets just say thanks to the last couple of years we should be happy to have any kind of my kind of urgency- my kind being energy toward work not the chicken-on-its-last-leg-kind. What can be gained from organic change movements in an organization?
Energy
I have learned over the years that while not ideal change management can be dropped in anywhere and provide benefits. Change does not happen without energy, both the hyper and the inner calm kind. If you are a leader and you did not stay ahead of your organic change it is now your responsibility to direct the flow. Just remember energy dissipates-sometimes quickly.
Teamwork
Organic change to continue relies on waves of connection tied to, usually immediate, outcomes. The energy tends to build and attach itself in apparent disconnected areas. Take a breath if you are a leader. Those types of connections are the key to horizontal change (at any level) and to the spider web of change. Beware though group think and the power of new relationships to detach people from business objectives.
Innovation
As soon as someone breaks away, in their mind, from hierarchy and the status quo ideas flood in like rain from above. Rain, floods and water are common insertions in writing to wipe something away. Change at its core must always wipe something away to create a spot for the new. The hard part about innovation and strategy is what to wipe out and what to replace it with. Don’t let the ideas get away and don’t let the ideas get away from you.
Movement
Not the same as energy.
I am surprised and puzzled, often, at how little actually happens in large organizations. What does happen, like politics (because of internal politics) is typically balanced by something else and so nothing really happens. With any organic change pods something is happening. Be refreshed and if it is good go after the balancing mechanisms…uh people. This is a spot where I might even be convinced to use the word resistance…
So what we have here is an exercise in digging up the dandelions, possibly even showing them off in a vase for awhile. What you do not want is to fire up the lawnmower and plow them down like weeds.
One persons weed is another’s salad.
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.
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.
Stuck with CM too low and too late as a leader or practitioner?
If you are sitting in that spot you probably have little control or influence over corporate strategy, the strategy for the change rollout (if there really is one), the ownership of the initiative, the accountability of leadership tied to the initiative or overall timing. If you are interested in doing things “right” you are in for a long haul.
What you might want to try is to be influential, make a difference, in the speed and acceptance of the change. At its core that is what CM is about. So you are simply leveraging your core competency.
Some suggestions:
- Strip away extras (that suck up budget) like readiness assessments
- Focus on descriptions of a changed environment rather than end states
- Go with “because” as an answer to why (I know cringe factor there) and be helpful and available
- Communicate context to the timeline (rather than the strategic bigger picture)
- Accept that CM can be a project management add on and then practice CM (reach out to leaders, mentor, distribute supporting information to grow awareness, illustrate cross functional collaboration, etc)
Part of the reason CM is approached the way it is with most models and most organizations is because of the thrown in the middle pattern. Initially the idea of CM was to speed along projects. It had an “insertion” basis and so the gurus developed models to address that client need.
Things have changed; stakeholders get it and expect more.
Organizations made up of lots of people and lots of group think move slowly on the change scale.
I am beginning to think that to push that boat takes organic change management in the middle, with leaders, with new employees added to each and every change and operational tweak. If speed is the final measure then addressing that first and making a difference on a smaller scale may be the light for tackling the bigger, wider change as a web approach.
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.
|
|
