|
|
I took a break from change for half the day yesterday and chaperoned my daughter (8 years old-third grade) on a field trip.
We went to a local farm-Forest Hill Farms in Danville, CA- to learn about agriculture in the Tri-Valley at the turn of the century.
In one module the kids (and me) learned about canning and had the opportunity to draw their own label. And that is where I quickly returned to my change management environment.
I was struck by the many approaches. And fascinated by the connection to similarities with adults “drawing” up change.
Plenty, but not what you think
Change management is responsible for:
- Helping stakeholders always know context of work
- Showing stakeholders the level of their needed participation
- Ensuring trust in leadership
- Translating and communicating project accountabilities
- Fulfilling the role of central empathetic mediator and communicator
- Always thinking horizontally and holistically
Change management is accountable for:
- The definition of the end state
Yes that is it.
This is a preview of Responsibility and Accountability- What’s that got to do with Change Management? . Read the full post (291 words, estimated 1:10 mins reading time)
Sorry to shout.
What about those stakeholders that really do RESIST?
Granted this does and will happen. I have never seen a situation where that resistance did not make sense (once I dug a little deeper). Clarity here- from the stakeholders perspective.
It can come from previous bad experiences.
It can come from politics and ownership.
It most certainly comes from the way the organization rewards-based on operation rather than change. It can come from a comfort level that will be soon uncomfortable.
It can come from the status quo change approach that expects resistance and cheerleads urgency.
At Vision to Work, Inc. we have a process for laying out change called the 5 W’s.
It is a way to simplify the change process and address different kinds of people at different spots in the timeline.
Those 5 W’s are (in this order) :
Some people want to know why before they jump in.
Some people want to know where the change will land.
Some want to know who will be participating, when and at what level of accountability.
Employees and stakeholders that I interact with on change initiatives are surprisingly astute about corporate strategy. They expect any change to be tied to and connected with the companies goals. Yet maybe less surprising is the fact that change communication, approach and definition rarely is. To not have the connection is, of course, impossible.
So those stakeholders are left with one of two beliefs (and they are not shy about voicing this believe me)-
One is that management has no idea what they are doing
Two is that management does not care about the individuals in the organization
This is a preview of Corporate Strategy and Change- What about the People? . Read the full post (185 words, estimated 44 secs reading time)
This is another way of juxtaposing the broad horizontal view of Corporate Change Management with the focused deliverable and list based view present in a project stream. The problem that occurs with change initiatives is that the implementation of the change begins before there is any horizontal strategy. The train leaves before most of the passengers have even arrived. With IT initiatives little do they know the tracks are not even finished yet (since the technology typically develops during the implementation after change requests and legacy phase outs).
This is a preview of Corporate and People Strategy versus the Strategy of Change Implementation . Read the full post (174 words, estimated 42 secs reading time)
One of the key elements of change failure and stakeholder disillusionment (read faster failure next time) is the practice of throwing initiatives into functions.
- Transformational change into HR (death by irrelevance).
- Technology change straight to IT (slow, painful death from legacy systems and behaviors)
- Supply Chain change to Marketing (confusion before death by the external partner/sales firewall)
- CEO reorganizational change to the succession plan groomee (death by internal politics)
- Merger and downsizing change (death by experts in the culling of people)
This is a preview of Vertical Change Perspective- Measures of failure . Read the full post (167 words, estimated 40 secs reading time)
In addition to translating the end state there are phases of change which have their own translations.
- Idea to Plan
- Plan to Action
- Action to Use
Stage to stage there are individuals who act as the translators. The Idea phase may be the translation of a Vision through End State to a Plan. That would be a hand off from the first horizontal (including the CEO) to another group or individual leading the Plan. Then the PMO or project oriented team members translate to Action (lists, accountabilities, risk management, PMO expertise). The actual Action, the items on the list, are translated by the project team to individuals. Finally those actions become the basis for Use (with technology and process change) or behavior in the case of transformational change.
It puzzles, shocks and intrigues me that multi million dollar years long consultant and resource heavy initiatives can be bulldozed forward by one or two assumptions.
- If you are old-fashioned, tied to the status quo and think that people should do things (change) because that is their job, everything you do after that will have that tone.
- If you think you will have to overcome resistance you will approach change with that attitude.
- If you think there needs to be a sense of urgency (or are told that by a high paid consultant or team of them) then you will approach change from that angle. And look a little like a wind up doll to the stakeholders.
Ruffle feathers Contrarianism
There is a square peg into a round hole perspective with change management that jumps out of everything I see written.
It is an approach to change that relies on pushing, coaxing, forcing, driving, convincing rather than understanding, leadership, empathy and clearly defined end states. It is a perspective that guides everything that happens in change management and it has worked its way into the executive suite. It is based on two factors straight from Kotter (whose approach has a strangle hold on the change management community and by extension their clients).
Overcoming resistance
This is a preview of CEO perspective on change- Even McKinsey is following the status quo . Read the full post (483 words, estimated 1:56 mins reading time)
|
|