|
|
This is where all third party firms and most consulting firms believe you as a client should reside- in their stable. Once they weasel their way in to your inner circle or directly to you (disclosure- of course I also have to do this part) they want to “own” you like a Kentucky rancher. Any use of you for any reason that has to do with their connection, in their scheme, requires a fee. The more valuable you are to the other ranchers the higher the fee. This might work for raising horses. For consulting it makes no sense to you or to the consultants who can provide service (the actual solution) to you directly (note the ranchers were left out of this sentence).
Enter the non-compete clause.
This is the fear clause that staffing firms, employers and (IMHO) paranoid consulting firms put in their contracts. For an excellent post on this as an issue look here- http://tinyurl.com/4ddpd. Thankfully here in California that clause according to CA code 16600 is unenforceable and often illegal. In my dealings I choose to sign and ignore (although now I am reading of firms that use the court process to bleed/victimize the secondary party knowing full well they themselves are in the wrong).
Why is this important to you the client?
- A barrier (and a big one) has just been placed between you and your solution. If any continued work with you has a 40% fee cut included you will either have to increase your budget or lose the consultant to higher paid direct roles.
- Someone else is trying to screen your decision making process.
- Someone else is keeping resources at arms distance (or more) from you.
- You begin with a consultant who may not be too thrilled with the contracting arrangement.
- You build in a permanent “telephone game” with an unnecessary person(s) inserted into all of your communication with the consultant
- You add time. For interactions with clients that take a day or two I have often needed a week or more with third parties. How long do you want to wait to begin that engagement?
Time, money and control all taken away from you by the needless fear of non-competes. I am guessing those are three things you hold dear as a client and business person.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, External Consultant, Fees, Value, vision to work
Shhh. Don’t let your competition in on this- Organizational Development (OD) can be done at the same time as Change Management. Top Secret tip number two- it can be one in the same person (or small team). If you are a smart executive you will work with consultants who see this as part of their role (if you know my writings this is where the hint comes in- we are not talking Big 3 here [it is still 3 isn’t it?]).
Executive Development
No matter the intensity of the change role for an external consultant there are always stray hours in between that can be used to coach and guide executive development. On one of my recent engagements I let Director and Senior Director leaders know I was available for my hour and a quarter drive in the morning and evening to the client site. On a long engagement (in this case 9 months) there is a lot of that time. Enough so that I was able to develop simple coaching plans around the leaders role in change and guide them through skill and competency development. I personally consider this a stealth value add for my own clients.
Training
Design is a very important part of communicating change. With a little extra effort (and the ability, competencies and knowledge to teach) the CM can build skills for Manager level team leads around the design, organization and dissemination of information. The same goes for project management. There are countless one on one sessions in every large change between the external CM and internal stakeholders and line level leaders. Well thought out (by you the client and the external) these interchanges can have components of skill development- the skills which you, of course, uncovered in your initial data gathering and development of the end state description.
Process
A good trusted advisor high level CM can be your executive eyes and ears (as well as right hand) to the organization. Unless the current initiative is specifically addressing process you may not want to, under cover, change it. You can however cull helpful tidbits from the change exchange that happens quickly and through less layers with your external agent. Given the chance to be an “undisclosed source” most stakeholders will readily give ideas, perspective and input that no amount of organizational suggestion boxes will ever uncover.
Structure
Repeat above surveillance for structure. Process is how tasks play out and how people interact. Structure is the support, tools and reporting. The two together always have a treasure trove of secrets that can be gleaned.
Your own development and introspection
This one is the trickiest and usually requires a 007 level external. They are your trusted advisor. Trust can come from transparency and honesty. What better way to develop that than to trade suggestions back and forth for improvement and enhancement. You have a chance to be each others consultant. Unlike the real spy game you should both stay on the same side (no double agents in this relationship).
As an executive do not miss the chance to build organizational development into your change process and interactions. The current environment looks to be external resource heavy for quite some time. Make sure the transition to a better balance of internal and external is part of your change strategy.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
When consultants are “on the beach” (the inside term for not on client engagements) they react completely different from employees who feel close to losing their job. They dig in, retrench and create. Most consultants are itching to have a chance to build collateral, increase their thought leadership and learn. The economic crises has proved fertile ground for just that.
That collateral for you as an executive is the foundation for effective, efficient delivery of business objectives.
Consultants are by nature restless, enjoy a challenge and thrive in the most difficult of situations. Their sweet spot is to have the tools and collateral, the time to think and just the right environment of confusion (and possibly fear). They like to accomplish things that others are too slow, too scared or not qualified to tackle. When they see a clear path with all those parameters they get things done fast.
Every one of those parameters is now lined up. Consultants have had plenty of time to create, think and learn. Now they are hungry for the chance to apply. For you that means a quick start from the backward slide of the last year or so.
Before you begin dreaming of business objectives and end states finding clear, quick paths to success look closer at what the use of those resources means to your organization and your culture. Your employees are likely fearful. They now worry about their jobs and their roles (and don’t expect that to go away for a long time). An energetic consultant with little baggage and a clear focus on goals is a serious threat. The more the numbers tilt in the direction of external resources (some firms were close to 50% even before the economy tanked) the more threat there is to the culture of the organization itself. And while unfounded (IMHO) those employees may think that the externals could actually replace them.
Your warning is
that too much reliance on external resources can weaken the fabric of your organizational culture. To rely on those resources when your culture has already weathered a storm (without the camaraderie of conquering adversity) can potentially effect those initiatives that happen after the first wave of success.
Why not strive for speed and success while at the same time transitioning your employees from fear to action. Pick a consultant (or small firm- you will not get this from the big firms) who understands what needs to be mended, wants to transfer that built up collateral and knowledge and is looking for challenge rather than maximum possible revenue (hint that would be the big firm- in fact just about any with employees). You will pull your employees into the new reality, accomplish and prepare all at the same time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, Value
I have seen and heard lately the term “over qualified”. In my own context I take it as a compliment, albeit a strange one. In forums it sounds as if this is a nasty symptom of the last tough 2 years.
Over an over I have turned this term to make sense of it. On a run this morning I got the “aha”. It has nothing to do with qualifications really, it has to do with potential for influence. Someone brought in for one of the new pseudo-consulting roles (an actual role is created that looks much like an employee position with the same type of requirements and the client also expects genuine consulting at the same time- like two people wearing the same hat) can quickly become a threat to the very person who brought them in.
I get it, especially in this cutthroat environment where it appears careers will remain at a stand still for years. Everyone is fighting for the next or at least a different spot.
Here is why it makes no sense-
-
Good consultants are always working themselves out of the role
-
They do not want your job (if they are overqualified presumably they could be in your spot if they chose to)
-
They are there to help you- the leverage they might have is to your advantage (assuming you shoot for end states in the case of CM consultants)
-
You and those on your team are probably deliverable based whereas a qualified consultant is solution based- err on the side of consulting with externals and let them use deliverables for leverage
-
Clients are price sensitive, consultants (good ones) refuse to compete on price- when a consultant is willing to meet in the middle you get value and price (now thanks to s sluggish business environment)
Senior executives tend to understand all these internal to external role to consultant connections. And therein is, perhaps, a lesson. Did they figure this out and use it to climb to their positions? While the fearful resisted?
Technorati Tags: change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, Value
I googled change management this morning to see the latest hawked wares and approaches. Since I am a spatial learner and love pictures I chose “images of change” as my first stop.http://tinyurl.com/245t9s5.
Wow.
Could the approaches be more overwhelming? Change itself has a tendency to be the same. As a practitioner wouldn’t you want to make the process easier? Although if I am selling snake oil…
Here are some observations from my image journey-
- Change practitioners adjust their approach to their own perspective (strategic, OD focused, PMO based, Leadership oriented etc)
- Change apparently either revolves around a hub (yes I am guilty with my spider web article-http://issuu.com/garrettgitchell/docs/prosci2010paper), moves along a torturous curve or follows clearly from step to step on a timeline (oh and it could look like an iceberg which is really helpful for the whole fear of change thing)
- You need phases, must have phases
- They are all heavily influenced by historical gurus
- Change is funny (I admit I did like the pictures and cartoons)
After a couple hundred blog posts of my own (maybe I need “the book” to get there) I still can’t quite explain this, but they all feel like they are forcing change into a funnel that magically comes out the other end with a solution. I can picture what an engagement would look like about 3 months in having followed one of these pretty pictures (you can bet the practitioners are inextricably entwined with their own drawings). If I were to ask at that point, “what will this look or feel like when it is all over?”, odds are the answer would not be there (for the practitioner, the leader and especially for the stakeholder).
For that to happen, assumptions, perspective and history usually have to be unraveled, looked at and then rebundled into a change approach that works back from the goal rather than forward to …. can’t resist…. infinity and beyond.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, change awareness, change failure, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
 Just the fact the there is a role for CM on any given initiative, program or project is a plus. It sends a signal to participants that the transition from one thing to another is complicated and difficult enough to warrant sheparding by a person rather than just through communication or project management.
As a Conduit
A CM resource external, internal or a designated leader will consider it their responsibility to make connections that are obvious, but for some reason are not happening. Leader to stakeholder and vice-versa, function to function, peer to peer across functions, internal to external resources to name a few.
As a Leadership Guide
This an extension of the conduit plus. It is difficult in organizations to get valuable feedback as a leader and to give the same as an employee/stakeholder. The CM often falls into the role of coach/mentor/advisor between the leading and the hands on work.
As a Communication Lever
In the same third party sense the communication for a change process can weave in operational interaction in a safer and more approachable manner than mandates and barked orders.
As an Organizational Assessment avenue
The process of gathering information for the end state descriptions reveals a wealth of data about the organization. Companies rarely have an avenue for objectively evaluating their people, structure and process. CM (with a good practitioner) shines a light in all three areas.
As an Operational Builder
If Change Management is an entity within the organization all of the above combined with the regular change management activities and expectations can address efficiency, collaboration, cross functional accountability and overall connection between strategy and implementation.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CCM, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Value, vision to work
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.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change awareness, change communications, Context, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, stakeholders, Value, vision to work
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.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, change awareness, change failure, engagement, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, resistance to change, stakeholders, Value, vision to work
High level change management has two or three spots in the timeline/process where I always feel it is essential to call a conference room late-morning-into-lunch meeting to wrap our arms around the big picture. I do not take forcing the invite lightly. One of the reasons I can be bold enough to take a chunk of first or second horizontal executive time is that an interesting thing always happens…something new, something potentially “viral” (in a good way), something specific to the client organization appears. It appears in the form of a new word (languaging at its core) a diagram, chart or picture.
One of those meetings (4 hours long) at a Fortune 50 firm created all of the above- a chart, a diagram and a picture. It was a picture that bore a striking resemblance to a camel. “It looks like we drew a camel”, I said on our sandwich break… that connection, that potential analogy, that unique to that organization picture, was all it took to begin creating a model. You might call that the second step of languaging.
The third step, now I hear a year later, after an all hands presentation by the client, was a wildfire spread of the analogy to different parts of the company around the world. Which has since morphed into functional and regional interpretations of the camel analogy, chart, picture and model.
It is nice that a camel can go a long time without water, can stand extremes of heat and has a face that takes a little time getting used to. All great languaging leverage points. Those up and down humps are also helpful to illustrate passage of time, levels of effort and participation. Carry that a little farther and you could say certain parts of the camel are better at carrying a heavy load (and certain camels are stronger).
This type of analogy languaging has happened a couple of time with clients… Maybe we should count them as deliverables…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change communications, change excercise, change management consultant, Communications, Executive, executive communications, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, Insights, Value, vision to work
Contracting between the actual owner of the change and the external CM practitioner is a crucial piece of the foundation for success. That contract- both the formal written version and the informal initial interaction- lays out expectations, introduces the client to a new and better understanding of the change process and glues the owner to the practitioner in a people and business relationship.
The insertion of anything in the middle of this business and person to person relationship is always detrimental.
Some reasons-
Third parties want to “own” the relationship- their definition of ownership is revenue based. Their way to protect that is to always insert themselves between the consultant and the client. And that helps Who?
Third parties skim the budget dollars. Direct contracts are at or less than those with a third party. Experienced consultants know that. So you can either save (by splitting the difference) or you can feel good about compensating the talent that is tied to your end states rather than burning dollars on overhead.
By using a third party you turn consulting into a commodity. Commodities have a direct tie to pricing. So the consultant gets a direct offer from another client at 50% and you assume they will stay? You, as a client, chose to use a third party so you have broken the ethical connection. As you can imagine consultants feel very little tie to the third party firms…
Third parties (no matter what they say) do not “know” your business. I have interacted with recruiters, staffing firms that think they are somehow consulting, consulting firms that somehow became staffing firms (unbeknown to them), internal contracted recruiters and internal recruiters. Except for the last one (and maybe the penultimate) they “knew” what they needed, but did not understand the whole picture (as in you within this initiative and the consultant and what they do and provide) . If I were a client paying upwards of 50% for this work I would have huge expectations for the “relationship”.
They do not find your talent faster. If a consultant has a LinkedIn profile you can find them with a phone call. And you get the added plus of relationship building right from the start.
They certainly do not find the best. Third party work for the best consultants is always fill-in. Because of the compensation difference between third party and direct they will be focusing how to fill in the missing revenue.
This is an important post because there is a trend to using more and more procurement type situations for true consulting. I have had to go through the dance (and waste a lot of precious change management time) a couple of times for high level roles because the client organization insisted on it. Judging by my own experience this is an area where there should be some loud shouting from clients and consultants.
The contracting relationship, the core of the process, is being sanded down and it is having an effect on implementation.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, change management consultant, engagement, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, Insights, Value, vision to work
|
|
