|
|
I took a little survey, very unscientific, of friends and peers the other day and came to a stunning realization-
People are Corporations
My CPA friend, a corporation.
My corporate hoteling, turn-french-fries-into-fuel brother, a corporation.
All those acquaintances with some sort of online presence, corporations in a virtual to touchable product way.
Peers working around the Microsoft case-third party-consultant dilemma, corporations each of them.
The local print shop, that group of lawyers down the street, all the little partnerships going on with the parents at my kids school, all have made corporations of themselves.
Everyone who has started a trust to make estate planning smoother, pretending to be corporations.
So what?
What this all means and why the significant change in the last few years (my dad was definitely not a corporation- owned by a few, but that’s a different discussion) I am not sure. By making yourself a corporation on equal footing with your person- hood, at least here in the US, you can:
- Put more money into retirement funds.
- Consult (and use that as leverage for flexibility- because people that are corporations legally get that vs. people who are just people- “employees”).
- Provide the appearance of something more powerful than just you (corporations are people, my friend- special and gifted people really).
- Have a clean slate financially in one area of your life (unless as a corporation person you do the same things you do as a person person, which is entirely possible).
- Hire people and legally treat them like people (you know mandate their hours, measure their performance relentlessly and basically own them in a way).
- Compete relentlessly against other corporations (who may simply be persons with a brand).
- Create an entirely different persona for your “self”- in fact do subsidiaries or multiple corporations and you can be a little schizophrenic (or a lot if you want).
- Totally give up on the whole thing by making your corporate self bankrupt.
- Less extreme than the bankrupt corporate version of yourself is the dissolving of yourself- you can just solidify as the new corporate you later.
See, this people are corporations thing has many benefits, my friend.
Technorati Tags: corporate change management, Insights, vision to work
There is a new breed of CM consultant out there.
Call them the Contrarians.
(there are so few of them I could make them t-shirts and not break the bank).
Maybe they got this way from seeing the crime of forced change.
Maybe it was the limitations of a project focus that made them think a different perspective might save the world (or at least the day).
Maybe they started a little before the template, do it in exactly in this order, cheese loving wave of death began.
Maybe they have that rare superhuman, or at least superhero (heroinne) combination of people and business skills (and perspective).
Maybe they have an intuitive camera in their heads (their superhero strength) that can take mental image pictures of possibility.
Whichever combination of these (or all of them, a mega superhero) got them here they have one thing in common: they see change big and broad and can translate to the here and now. (By contrast the others, not villains, just not superheroes, let alone contrarians, see things in terms of the here and now with the future state far off).
The superheroes weave process and competency into a pat,h then can accumulate expertise and be pulled toward end states.
The others pay close attention to task and phase. They are busy, but a little like the crime fighters I saw as a kid in New York all standing on Wall Street. I was about to say no crime there… bad metaphor I guess.
Without the big picture view and the down to earth understanding of people that these heroes have it is hard to catch all of the things that can get in the way of good and success which of course is what all superheroes and the people they help, want.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
- Change Management requires adapting structure (process, procedure and culture).
- Adapting structure means confronting status quo.
- CM has a long term view, but must also layer in to short term approaches (ex. Project Management).
- Requires the highest level leadership in the organization.
- Is often implemented at the project level.
- Done well requires a different level of transparency.
- Is an extra cost with long term ROI.
- Requires practitioner expertise & a certain level of understanding by stakeholders.
- Is never the Silver Bullet.
This list, of course, assumes a definition of change management that is strategic, high level and long term. The path to get there is Tactical Change Management. If only Tactical Change Management exists four will be tough to accomplish (leaders have already disconnected), six because of the disconnect from leadership will probably not change, eight might be too expensive and nine might be true if we meant lead bullet.
The number one challenge, if this is a Leno list, is that CM is seen as the hammer to bash the nail (which only holds so long). Our list becomes real when CM is the drill to finesse in the screw for long term strength.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, change management strategy, horizontal change management, vision to work
For change to work you have to know where you are going.
Not the path, not the process, not the timing- the place.
If you do not know what that place looks and feels like, and personalize that picture, how can you possibly figure out what needs to happen? Let alone who needs to be involved or which road to take.
Yet the change management conversation quickly moves to task, process and people (as in, “how do we get Joe on board” rather than who has the skill and competency to fill in this piece). I will stick my neck out and say that is really not a change management conversation, but project management.
Holistic dialogues like talking about and then describing end states seem to be very hard for most people (I spend a lot of time teaching this in my own practice) to have. Big picture (as big as the scenario, this end state back thing works for small stuff too) viewpoints are pushed aside, not taken seriously and overpowered by operational stuff and status quo thinking.
It is usually easy to point backwards to something the client did to illustrate how a little time defining the end of change would have made a BIG difference (in results and in spending).
I get it though. Pieces and parts make for easier explanations. Pieces and parts work to translate big stuff into real stuff (and small stuff). Our pieces then:
- Destination
- Place
- Journey
- Time
Destination
Vacations that have no purpose, just get in the car and go, are fun (until the first night you can’t get a room). Change that works that way is not fun (or cheap).
Just naming the destination does not count.
Talking about, explaining, imagining, envisioning, dreaming about the destination (the end state) can make it real. That vacation to “Italy”, fill-in-the-blank, was different than you imagined, or expected, it was still a great vacation though. If you had not planned for it and thought about how fun it would be would it have turned out as smooth and enjoyable?
And didn’t that place you were going to define the whole process? This is about… fill-in-the-blank destination. Maybe you learned a language (competency in org. talk). Maybe you bought some things you needed just for the trip (which can likely be reused). Maybe you needed help (even for the destination description) getting the whole vacation thing to work.
Odds are good you knew your destination and took the time to understand it and see it and feel it, pre-vacation.
Place
Did you take that a little further and imagine things that would happen while you were there?
Place (and spot for my change approach) are two of my favorite words. Place is the spot you are standing on (spot the relationship of yours and others places). You can pretend and imagine place before you get there.
Changes will happen along the way that define that place.
Once you know your destination you can begin to define place. You can start to make a high level list of the things that have to happen for that place in time to become.
Journey
A huge component of change has to do with the journey.
In the haste to get going, manage this whole project, the joy of the journey gets buried. In fact to use our vacation analogy it becomes uncomfortable, irritating and overwhelming.
If you know where you are going and have a sense of what that place and spot might be like you can put together some pieces of the journey. Think of it as gathering all of the parts to the building. You have started a high level plan, you have a sense of some of the things you might need. It is ok to gather them before you have the concrete project plan.
Know that as soon as you begin to gather, even plan to gather, the journey has begun.
It would not hurt to stop in the moment once in awhile to acknowledge journey.
Time
Because time just slips away.
And time is precious.
So don’t start manipulating it until you know what you are doing.
At this point in our narrative you have a destination set, you can stand in that time and appreciate what that destination is, you have a sense of the journey to get there, it is now OK to begin placing events on a timeline.
Please, please, please do not set the exact date you will get there (unless we really are just talking about vacations).
Chunk up the journey into pieces that can be labeled. Use your project management process if you want- those always have stage labels… plan, execute, implement etc. And/or try some new languaging for just this project, “across Global IT” is one I am using on my current engagement (signals this will be collaborative and circle the globe).
Then go ahead and get down and dirty with some real project management.
Check yourself on that journey. Sometimes the destination drifts away like an old Twilight Zone show where the hall has no end.
Destination, place and journey are most important for change. Task and chores just fill in the steps to get you there. The hands on work is the easy part…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change excercise, change failure, change management, change management consultant, Change Strategy, corporate change management, End State, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
I think this is where change initiatives go to wait for abrupt endings.
Or maybe it is the state of burning through cash while waiting to decide to cut losses and eliminate a program.
For an external consultant it is that feeling you get when you know the 10% across the board cut is around the corner (the corner being one step past nugatory).
Or maybe it is the endless change initiative that last years (longer than predicted) and seem to just get worse.
: of little or no consequence : trifling, inconsequential
: having no force : inoperative
Merriam-Webster
Or maybe it is just an innocuous adjective that defines something inconsequential, “including this aspect in our CM approach will have a nugatory effect”.
You are all released from nugatory.
Technorati Tags: Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
To craft a good end state that has lots of room for possibility you have to be able to dream.
Dreaming is a step above imagining and envisioning.
Some pushback responses to this:
“That takes too long”.
“Why dream when that end state is not possible?”
“If I do that I am bound to be disappointed”.
“Everyone will think I am crazy”.
“I am not good at that”.
The only response you can use is the last one. This is something you can get better at.
A previous post, “Change Management from the Shore” looked at this from an executives perspective.
You can get better at this by using your own example and practicing on that.
I will use one of a friend:
She is a teacher, a reading specialist. The teaching environment, especially here in California, is not pleasant to say the least. (Parents are terrible and demanding, unrealistically, pay just keeps going down and down and class sizes keep going up which makes it hard for teachers to do what they chose the career for- teach children).
So we have one catalyst for change- environment.
She happens to be reaching the last step on the union pay scale. This means an automatic (cost of living raises disappeared for teachers five or six years ago) pay cut every year for the rest of her career. The chances for a new union contract in this hostile environment are nil.
Another catalyst for change- something to do with money (or revenue for organizations).
Since she is a reading specialist her dream is to have every kid in the world excited about books, not just a couple of kids ALL of them!
Catalyst three- desire and energy.
Three catalysts for change, a skill set that can transfer, especially in the non profit world and likely good timing (there will be a lot of change for people and roles in the next couple of years).
Putting yourself in your shoes, with your own scenario maybe, think how hard it is to dream of an end state…
For her, maybe it is working for a non-profit that deals with reading around the world. Maybe it is a political action role to build education funding and awareness. Maybe it is a big switch and has something to do with a corporate role with learning and development as the competency set. Or maybe it is something we are not thinking of (remember this is DREAMING).
You have to say “what if?”. You have to pretend. You can’t have any parameters.
Then you can reel back from those end states to see what it would take to get there. When you have reeled in all the line you will be at now. How much of those needs do you have now? What can you carry forward to this new end state?
This is my push for dream end states, personal or corporate: if you do not play out the various scenarios, however exotic, you will not be ready for opportunities. Change takes a certain level of “being ready”. If you do not have that you have to build it and by then the possibility for change may have passed you by.
DREAM of possibilities. DREAM of end states for your own personal life and that of your organization. Then be ready…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change excercise, vision, vision to work
A typical bullet point list for change management within an organization:
- something about management vision and understanding
- something about impact
- something about planning
- something about users, stakeholders and participation
They are never numbered, but always in this order. So if they were numbered what would be strange about this?
You can have participation with no vision. I know makes no sense, but look around your organization…
Can you have vision with no participation?
Not for very long.
The order is backwards- 4 needs to be one. Understanding stakeholders over a period of time, refreshed continuously is why change management exists (because it is not happening- or at least its not first on the list).
One could be two- stakeholder then vision.
Impact is a nasty word, negative in connotation. The process and approach that follows usually fits right in to that connotation.
Planning is usually about layering CM over the project process. That does need to be done but not without the stakeholder to vision then back to stakeholders order.
Keep in mind leaders and practitioners (who can influence leaders and the decisions of organizations) you can have participation without vision (however scattered that may become) but you cannot have a vision that means anything without participation. Are you signaling and showing you understand that premise?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Executive, stakeholders, vision to work
Tactical vs. Strategic: An Alternative Definition at Thedwick blog (Tim Cull is the author) has a nice pragmatic 4th point to add.
The blog is IT heavy so having given Tim credit for this gem I will pull some of the post:
“1) Tactical is short-term and Strategic is long-term, or…
2) Tactical is small and Strategic is big, or…
3) Tactical is kludgey and Strategic is high-quality”
His fourth add:
“4) Tactical is something you’re willing to change to meet local conditions and Strategic is something you won’t change to meet local conditions.”
His explanation:
“All too often, we find ourselves clinging too tightly to a failed Tactic instead of adapting to conditions as we find them on the ground. During such times, what we really need to do it step back, remind ourselves of what the original Strategy really was, and find a new Tactic (using what we learned from its failed predecessor) to make it happen. Just because your first Tactic failed doesn’t necessarily mean your Strategy is unsound, it just means you need to find a new Tactic.”
My spin:
Something about this fourth add is pure. True effectiveness in quick changing environments requires equally fast adaptation. If change management is part of broad strategy (and tactical implementation) some of that flexibility should be built in to process, structure and culture. Looking back toward strategy while adjusting (and likely adjusting the strategy a little as a result) just seems like perfection.
Because I love crisp explanations and smart insights I will spin no more and leave this pure. (You might want to look at my next post though…)
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Change Strategy, strategy, vision to work
Sure you can create champions (a la Kotter) and hope for something more than a label.
What you REALLY want for your change initiative are Fans & Advocates.
Fans
A fan is someone who watches.
They are outsiders to the actual action, but willing participants in the environment and energy. They, on their own, put together groups of like minded fans. They share information about the thing they are rooting for. They tend to not want to give up, even after it may appear those they are cheering have.
Fans are supportive- not always unquestioning, which is good.
So what does a change fan look like?
If they enjoy being a fan of things then they likely watch everything. They see failures and they see successes. They see a lot of potential for success- fans are like that.
They may be in supportive roles to change like finance or HR. While they might benefit from a certain change they are not necessarily part of making the change happen (except as fans and they know that IS their chance to participate in some way).
A fan can be the rare external view from inside the organization. If they are as conscious of improvement as they are in being involved in energy they can be loyal supporters (and critics, which is good).
Advocates
This may not be as pure a group as the fans.
Fans just want to see success. For them success is the best when it happens to those they are rooting for.
Advocates however likely have some personal reason for supporting and pushing forward change. They probably advocate something within the change initiative, like software or process or personnel. Advocates push things, it just may not be the change as a whole.
That’s OK though.
Because an advocate is determined to have their advocacy rewarded. They are willing to go out on a limb to get that to happen.
Partnership for them is almost a given. Two advocates with the same pursuit are much more powerful and influential than one.
Advocates (because they rely on collaboration and exchange to succeed) often have excellent connections to others. Connections and the ability to leverage those links are crucial to effective change management.
Champions for change is a good idea- especially if they take the label willingly. Fans & advocates can be a bigger, broader group with the ability to spread influence and connect people and pieces. Look carefully on the periphery of your change initiative for those who may already be fans or advocates and those who could be with a little more inclusion and communication. They might just help your team and your change rise to the top.
Technorati Tags: change champions, change communications, change management, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Kotter, stakeholders, vision to work
Sometimes change management is an operational, analytical, label-less effort.
Here is a short list of situations where change management now exists without project, program or initiative labels. Each can be a prerequisite for transformational change:
- Change Entity
- End User Support
- Introducing Change Management
- Non-program Focused Organizations
Change Entity
Situation:
Client brings in single external consultant to review organization, or function, for skill, competency, talent, understanding of change management and an evaluation of current project process. There is no label for this effort. The budget likely comes straight from the executives own flexible pool of money.
There are deliverables built in (the analysis and assessment), but it is mostly a “rover” search with lots of dialogue and interaction.
It is operational in that current process is reviewed. It is analytical with an external eye. It is label-less, except that the organization now has a high level consultant who is making connections horizontally, vertically and collaboratively that do not officially exist in the organization.
End User Support
Situation:
Users (this is a broad definition meaning anyone who is using something in the organizations structure- software, process, procedure, etc.) can’t find what they need. Maybe users do not know how to do things (which is very common now with the almost complete elimination of real training). One common version, in big older organizations, is that no one knows who does what and there really is no way to find out.
This one could be loaded with deliverables. I find in these scenarios it helps to create something to illustrate things I am explaining. For process it may be a description of a much needed role that does not exist. For software it may be a quick video to teach something not used that could be, or being used, but incorrectly (OneNote in Office is a good example). For procedure it might be a list of places where too many steps exist or where steps are not clear (or do not make sense).
This is at it core operational. It is analytical, but on the people side- finding the spots where small change could make user work life easier, preferably instantly, is the key to a successful effort. This version of label-less change is about how people do the tasks that feed (or will feed after the label-less behavior change) into labeled change.
Introducing Change Management
Situation:
Change management does not exist in the organization and the wise executive client brings in a single external consultant to build understanding and perspective. (shameless plug- of CM that has an end state focused positive approach).
This one may have no deliverables. Really the consultant is the deliverable. (Paying for knowledge and experience and the ability to build connections in the organization, how novel [I think that used to be called “consulting”]). OR, it could have a ton of deliverables. If a change entity is in the works for the future, the introduction can be a chance to get a jump start on templates (yes there will be SOME templates) and design elements.
CM introduction has operational components if the consultant is smart enough to know that ease of regular work equals willingness to participate. It is analytical behind the introduction. Every organization is different. Integrating change management the first time around requires finesse. It helps to bring in the analytical element to consider various measurement aspects within the organization. Fight me on this, but measurement is the enemy of CM. Don’t fight me too hard, I realize your enemy can often become your most trusted partner with a little respect thrown in.
A CM introduction works better when it is label-less. Don’t tell that to those “get-all-over-the-organization-with-our process (and templates)” consulting firms this. They know a big bright sign that says, “we (insert company name) are HERE” can bring in a whole lot of dependent revenue. (The dependency quickly has two players- client and previously inserted company).
Non-program Focused Organizations
Situation:
To me the strangest of the bunch. Many organizations- well established, more or less monopolies, with no incentive or need for real big change- operate in a non-program focused format. So the situation is that the client WANTS some labels. The client wants to be able to separate some things out, name them and illuminate the possibility for change small or big.
This is analytical. Numbers must come into the mix somehow. This type of organization relies on numbers for “proof” of everything. This is operational. You may be looking at suggesting something that is absolutely not done in the organization (hint: strategy first, the naming, followed by tactics the work rather than what exists- the other way around). This is a label-less change initiative to put some labels on things. Sounds like fun!
Thanks to more visibility for change management, in understanding and presence, a good chunk of work for senior external consultants is now label-less CM. From the creation of change entities to end user support and simple introduction of change management, especially for organizations that do not have a project focus, label-less change is becoming much more common.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
|
|
