|
|
There is a time frame built in to the change management process that I have found carries from client to client, transformation to transformation. This may be due to human nature, the consistency of organizational interaction or something within the change process itself. In a nutshell here is what the timing looks like-
The three month period is the time it takes to have enough information for a genuine dialogue about strategy, vision and end states. It takes this long for us, Vision to Work, Inc. to gather the right amount of information to question, affirm and coalesce reality with illusion. This period is the absolute core for transformational initiatives. I would say it is a necessity for all others, but you could shorten the timeframe (but keep the relationship timing to the other phases) if the change is functionally contained.
The second phase is the gathering of stakeholders… wagons in a circle? process. This is where the measurement and gauging of participation levels takes place. In some ways this is the (what I consider old fashioned) stakeholder analysis. It is important during this time to see the change as a big picture event that spreads over a certain area. Gauging what that area is, how fast the spread, who gets touched and to what extent, is the output at six months.
Once the end state can be defined with all its angles and it is clear what that means for the spread of effect then the lists, the timelines, the tasks can begin to be created and charted. This is the spot, assuming the first two stages were early and thorough, that the PMO can shine. The change management that needs to be integrated in their processes has been set up and can be supported. This box can be anywhere from 3 months to years in length. It is the one that can severely stretch- expectations, time, money, patience and the resources of the organization. You can forget the shorter time length if the first two stages are skipped-no matter the initiative.
And I can’t help but point out to any senior level executive who happens to read this… right HERE is typically where the CM practitioners are brought in. If you have done this in the past-OOPs.
The last box/phase is the transition to the change. It is when the, we hope, inevitability of the end state begins to become apparent, comfortable and, to those on board, is the present. For a technology implementation you could call this the Adoption phase (assuming a certain percent begin that process before it is official).
For our own thinking, and now yours, here is our model overlaid-
The output for each phase is the answer(s) to the respective “W” question. The time periods of each phase are consistent, but the importance and effect is represented by the size of the first box. It is when these time frames are crunched, or worse, when the relationships are tweaked that change runs into problems. I think I can safely extend that statement to projects and, at times, organizations as a whole.
This is a touchy area I realize. Let’s take a stand-outside big picture look.
+ :
- Energy
- Teamwork
- In some ways more efficient
- Can be powerful for a one shot change
- :
- Threatens leadership (I didn’t say control, that is a different discussion)
- Methodology is organic
- Creates infighting and mini silos (see previous bullet)
- Is a great example of how most change in organizations starts in the middle (of the process and the organization) with no beginning
- It rarely connects to long term strategy
Grass roots organic change can be a great thing for accomplishing a short list of objectives or a small change that has real time constraints. The energy and the shared commitment makes for teamwork which gets work done fast (this is the core scenario for efficient business change). The excitement and commitment pull more people in which can (I emphasize can because there are some negatives here too) increase collaboration horizontally. If it works it can be a great model for the middle, of the change process.
Which is my transition to the potential negatives.
There is a very real threat to the way those responsible and accountable direct work (leadership in general and potentially a threat to a single individual high up). The way the original group goes about the change process will typically do one of two things- either grab a single approach from something/someone well marketed, say a book or grab everything from everywhere and create, well, a “grass roots” methodology. If function 2 happens to be in the same situation with a different change of their own we suddenly have methodology ownership. Grass roots change (and worse change design) is reactionary.
Explaining to do I realize.
From my external viewpoint dropped into the organization at a higher level this is what I see (typically)-
The grass roots energy starts as a reaction to the fact that leadership does not have a handle on change. The organization does not have a guiding entity, group of resources and approach (I like that word better than methodology it seems more human, realistic and practical) to change that ties to strategy, energy and work. That is a vacuum combination for an attitude of doing it yourself.
Grass roots organizational energy, as I see, is typically an illustration of strategy poorly communicated or strategy non-existent (sorry harsh, how about strategy weak). This is in terms of goals to work and demands (still work) to workload. It is amazing how many times the discussions around the grass roots efforts have to do with building a strategy. Makes me wonder who will be, or is, in “charge”…
Change Management has picked up a buzz in the last couple of years. Everyone who is trying to climb internally wants to be the keeper of the design. In one organization I worked with they had no less than six separate “design of change” grass roots groups going (with three big firms and a host of independents suffering a Pavlovian reaction like dogs at a cafe). A little like many businesses competing in a new space- what follows is merger mania with the loudest (not necessarily the best) winning the race.
Tying it all back together to something that works for the organization as a whole- a horizontal approach- is a change initiative in itself (surprisingly or maybe not so, typically started at a grass roots level).
What can you learn as a leader (or a grass roots barnburner if you strayed here) from this fly on the wall post?
Nurture anything that is grass roots. In the process be realistic about why it is happening in the first place. Do not be afraid of a high level group, entity and approach that can manage the connection between you (and your high level leader peers) your stakeholders and strategy fulfilled.
… and warning sign number one.
Because, for me, it is, “what do I need to know?”.
Doing before knowing is the mark of an inexperienced consultant (or the forte of a contractor). This question from a client is an indicator that some knowledge exchange between the two of us may just be the answer.
So what will I need to know?
The most important need to know is the description of the end state (not the current state, not the future state and not the black hole gap in between). There is a whole lot of why built in. This is not the why you are thinking of. It is not the “why” business case for the change (that will help in the overall description). It is not the “why we need this now” version. It is not the why we need this at this point. It is certainly not a search for justification. And it is not a question that gets a quick answer of because.
It is the why someone would be willing to participate and contribute to the effort. It is the why someone would want to be involved. It is the why the organization needs this (maybe a humanized and respectful business case). It is the why the future will be better when the end state is reached- yes a journey, yes difficult maybe, yes all of those things inherent in change- pretty and not so.
If I have marketed well in my own work , the owner of the change, the keeper of the cash, the leader the light shines on (the glaring one, not necessarily the one for the award ceremony) will be the person to open the gate for the path to the information.
The need to know will-
- Reveal the org. chart formal or hidden
- Illuminate structural flaws in the organization
- Illuminate cultural flaws in the organization
- Alert the hamsters on the wheels (which stop and look, which keep mindlessly running on the wheel?)
- Provide a broad stroke of the history of change in the organization
- Clue me in to the connection between leadership, stakeholders, vision and satisfied end states
- Provide clarity on the ability to take, give and assume responsibility and accountability in the organization
- The horizontal, vertical, diagonal and circular connections (that’s the hidden org. chart) present or not
Ok I concede this will create a list…
- A packed schedule of short interviews with a strategic mix of stakeholders.
- Somewhere in the mix of number one- a visual spider web chart of connections current, and connections needed, to first create and then get to, the end state.
- A list of the communication vehicles current (and connected to the change) and missing.
- My own secret list of movers, shakers, gatekeepers and agnostics (in general, not necessarily related to this change).
As with most clients maybe not what you were expecting?
Horizontal change must have change management present from the very beginning.
The lack of this is, I think, the major reason initiatives do not get the traction they need. It is frustrating, surprising and disconcerting that almost all of the projects, programs and initiatives I see in organizations have broken this rule.
Here are some reasons-
- Historical approaches
- The insular, siloed nature of organizational work
- Internal power grabbing
- A misunderstanding (ignorance?) about what the process of change is and what it takes to guide it forward
- Organizational design and structure
Let’s take four and five together since those are the responsibility of the first horizontal. It is very hard for anything in business to work in compartments anymore. To do so excludes information, collaboration and innovation. Tasks within a bigger picture can get checked off quicker without external influences, but groups of tasks inevitably rely on input from outside the compartment.
People change, get motivated and participate much quicker and with a higher level of interest when they share work, experience and difficulties with others (especially if they are different in some way so as to provide support from a different angle).
If the structure of the organization and its work does not support this interaction it is difficult to move change anywhere but up and down a vertical plane (certainly not horizontal).
“We collaborate and share all the time, that is not a problem for us”… Really. You think so? Where is this official? (and please do not mention committees, that is a post on its own).
One, two and three have the same core problem- a linear viewpoint that sees the future roll out as a series of steps to be managed and controlled (even if that is for Human Nature). One is a force feeding, two is the building of mini great walls and three looks a little like medieval Kings, Queens and Dukes trying to kill each other off.
Front loading change with knowledgeable strategically focused practitioners can create the horizontal ties needed for success early on. Creating a change group before the big initiatives begin is better.
I can safely say, in my experience at least, 99.9% of initiatives bring in CM people too late. The practioners that have a measure of success under those constraints are truly miracle workers.
The practice of Change Management (this is the “what I have seen” view) is missing a clear perspective of root causes. Admittedly finding the core of organizational difficulties, not just the work of CM practitioners but also day to day operations, is not easy, takes time and requires insight and empathy- a tall order. An order that should be filled though, because symptom chasing solves little, lays a bad path for the next go around and diminishes the ability of CM overall.
Here is an example-
A method focuses on resistance of stakeholders. It lays out a series of communications, surveys, assessments (readiness which strikes me as the silliest of terms if you are automatically expecting resistance) and pretty pictures to represent the data. The data is “interpreted” and then the practitioners follow their pattern of educating on “the change process”, “gaps” (CM methods love to include gaps), transitions (ditto for this) and the five stages (or 8 steps or 10 boxes) that stakeholders must and will adhere to/pass through to accomplish the change. Everything that is gathered and collected illustrates symptoms, results of the change difficulty.
To get anywhere and to truly be successful at the end state causes need to be addressed.
Short of me (and it is truly an uphill battle) I have never seen a practitioner who takes that information gathered (because despite its poor perspective and damaging assumptions does gather some good data- I love data as much as the next practitioner) and uses it to address the root causes that have created the symptoms that produce the “resistance” that live in the house that Jack built…(I couldn’t resist).
Very often (here’s where I would like to have some good data) strategy-poor or lack thereof-is a root cause. Equally powerful is a performance system that runs counter to the objectives of the change. Culture that has not been molded to be innovative or at least receptive to enhancement can be another stifling root cause.
Therefore the first step of any major horizontal, “transformational” (if you like that synonym) change is to look with a magnifying glass (at the first horizontal I might add- might as well start the real change from the get go) at strategy, the performance reward equation and the good and not so of the organizations culture. That view through the looking glass will illuminate symptoms before they even appear sans expensive, time consuming and often detrimental data gathering.
A question from a client leveraging change management for a merger- “What is the most important thing for us to keep in mind?”.
Let’s use a sugar into coffee (or tea or water) analogy.
The coffee is the parent entity or merger; the sugar the “mergee”. The parent company protected by the strength of the cup will stay intact; the company bought will, at some point depending on the purity of the sugar, dissolve into the coffee.
The sugar people may see ruin (an old fashioned CM consultant will call this resistance- big mistake, see almost any post in this blog). The coffee people will see a sweetened cup of coffee (and fail to see it is not the same cup of coffee anymore).
From a business perspective the sweetener should add to the revenue mix in some way. The initial add though is typically an innovative, start up approach and mentality, not necessarily existing in the parent organization. That mentality, from the business side, is represented by a product or service that augments the parent companies offerings.
The dilution, the enhancement, the changes from the originals, the sweet/the bitter and all they imply, is the answer to the question.
The way to get all that to work together is to acknowledge, then define the strength of the purchased entity, the value of the addition to the parent company and the best scenario to retain the innovative strength of the purchased firm in the new packaging of the parent company.
The rub is that the parent company stakeholders must understand the cultural tie and connections of the purchased group, the sugar people. They are obviously talented and skilled and they were able to show that under a different banner. The purchased company must understand that businesses grow and with that growth they must morph into new forms- sweeter coffee can be a great thing and is not possible without the sugar.
The external change management consultant- yes, External, this would be almost impossible to do right internally (and a third party arrangement may border on internal, keep that in mind) helps the clients to create an end state that can keep the strength of the sugar and not let it get too diluted in the coffee. That strength must be a reflection of the competencies and skill of the sugar people. This acknowledgement, recognition and inclusion must eventually overpower the bonds the purchased group has to their former flag.
Anything that emphasizes the big deep cup of coffee and delegitimizes the value of a single grain of sugar is going to make a messy, foul tasting cup of coffee.
I specialize in the design of change within organizations.
Some C level executives say, “we already do that”.
Some HR people I meet say ,“that’s what we do”.
Some PMO leaders say, “that’s our role”.
Some strategy/business development leaders say, “that is integrated into all of our processes”.
Some consultants say, “there’s no market for that”.
All stakeholders say, “if only we had that here…”
Despite expertise, energy and participation of all, most organizations are missing something. They have to be since I do this (there is a market) and each of those people above disagree with one or others. The “missing” is a glue of sorts that ties the organization together horizontally.
What’s needed is a way to facilitate change, either initiatives or operational, so that everyone feels in charge/control and goals are clear and shared (see above- we already do that- then why are consultants so busy?).
When gluing things together you often need an external influence (the clamp) before you can get a strong bind. That in our case is a consultant. The bind is the behavioral changes and structural pieces left in place after that consultant leaves. If the change entity is designed well it should be possible to add external influences at any time as the clamps to tie things together. The internal work is the assembly of the pieces and the creation of the idea for change.
I have to believe that the reason this does not happen is thanks to the first five bullets. Or maybe I just need to speak a little louder?
Change Management is a dance between keeping that which is comfortable and worthwhile and opening up new possibilities, profit and value.
Think of the status quo as a fenced in field. Despite the fact that the fence can easily be knocked down there is still safety. There is at least the appearance of, safety.
Now add a gate that can let in new influences.
You might also want to use the gate for letting things out (or free?).
Does that gate need a lock? And if you think it does I would question the strength (and need for) the fence first.
Change in your organization and the “management” of that ebb and flow is a powerful leverage point for using the gate and its path. Change that acknowledges and uses the status quo for positive profit and improvement is change that people follow. The smart change agent is a little like the sentry at the gate balancing all that can pass or should not pass in either direction.
There is a theory in quantum mechanics that it is possible the future influences the present (and possibly the past). I dug into it in a recent Discover Magazine article.
And did my best to understand the true meaning for quantum mechanics, but big picture mentality that I have…
I got to wondering how that might look for the change process.
It could mean there are multiple versions of result and effect. Basically versions of success and failure. Successful establishment of process and an adaptation of culture to speed change if the future has anything to do with it should be the hand that pulls in the present.
Less success would be fed by a status quo that requires to much time to adapt and therefore guides a less powerful approach to change.
Or look at it this way- in any large change initiative during the design of the end state imagine how the future would look if the present path was smooth. Do what it takes to not just progress toward and get to the end state but create a path to the future (that in this perfect world is feeding back in the moment).
From experience I would say there is a feeling of inevitability, a magic carpet of forward progress, on smooth exciting change initiatives that might just be guided by a different hand of time (or lack of time as a dimension).
What entity, element or approach do you have in your organization that links the separate parts together? And no you the CEO or senior leader does not count (although you do get credit if you assumed that was your responsibility).
HR would like to have that ownership and there is a history in the literature trying to prove and justify their role. But because of the nature of many of the HR functions, governance, performance, compensation etc, it works best as a transactional function.
Enter OD, Organizational Development, which was an attempt to separate out the people part of HR. It has its place as a training, development, mentoring entity but it is typically too people oriented to effectively deal with business strategy.
The PMO (Project Management Organization) in many organizations tries to take the reins and be the unifier. The problem there is that they are used to and excellent at the control of process, timelines and tasks. Unity and connection do not come from control. If it does temporarily it dissolves quickly with lack of attention to people, human nature and disparity of approach and perspective.
It could be a COO role but operations will run into the same versatility constraints as the PMO.
The Corporate Communications function also tries to shepard this role in large organizations. The need for a human touch, fairness, mediation and compromise makes this a bad fit. This function tends to present information with a marketing twist to support branding and corporate presence (even with their internal communications). Stakeholders see right through this veneer and are quick to hit delete buttons on all messages.
What is needed is an entity made up of skills and competencies from each of these areas. A clean balance of business and people, structure and process, method and approach.
and so Change Management
Not change management as it is currently rolled out in most organizations (with a project focus) but change management directly tied to corporate strategy. An entity that is responsible for the understanding, the communication and the compromise needed to connect the first horizontal to shared goals. One that feeds back missteps, successes, insights, ideas and innovation.
With ownership of initiatives by high level leaders and a clear and apparent partnership between the first horizontal and the change entity, trust can be built with employees so that future change is more predictable. Or at least less unpredictable.
|
|
