|
|
As the executive owner of change look at your communications with the view of a stakeholder and take guidance from a trusted advisor to ensure you are genuine and match your personal style. The participants in your change effort will be looking closely for this. Keep in mind trust is often a direct line to motivation and participation. Develop your Coffee Persona.
This is the ‘you’ that your friends and close business associates see. This is where your perspective is clear, your values are supported and motivations are apparent. Your coffee persona emphasizes with gestures, clarifies with tone, connects
Continue reading Your “Coffee Persona”- tips for executive communication
http://www.contrarianconsulting.com/lean-solo/
Is an excellent post written by Katherine Radeka as a guest blogger on Alan Weiss’s Contrarian Consulting blog.
Not much needs to be added except that third parties too can cause the, “…non-value-added (waste)..”, that Katherine and Alan, in much of his writing, talk about.
I would add that many of the solo consultants out there have worked for the big firms while most of the leaders in the big firms have not been solo for any length of time (and it is quite the site to see them maneuver in this environment). So with “solo’s” you get a
Continue reading Solo or big firm- Consulting is about Client value isn’t it?
The opposite of this- hourly, full time and third party- is what I consider another disturbing trend in change management (and some consulting roles in other disciplines).
High level consulting especially change management since it deals so closely with business/human nature requires a strong, trusting relationship. It is essential that the true owner, the one with the budget and ultimate responsibility for the change and the consultant agree on and work together toward shared business goals. To insert a third party breaks this connection. Direct.
The owner must know that the consultant will be available throughout the engagement. The consultant
Continue reading Paying for High Level Change Management-Upfront, Retained and Direct
I am a stakeholder in the middle of an initiative invited/told/asked/coerced into participating. Do I understand how my effort will fit into corporate strategy? Do I know what led up to the spot where I am asked to contribute? Do I know what comes next and the value of my effort?
Change Communication to be considered successful must always be able to answer these questions.
Time-
For change this means length, moment and its relation to the initiative as a whole. A stakeholder should know the relationship between their work and time both as tasks with length and deadlines
Continue reading Communicating Change- Time, Place and Context
Do you sit on the first horizontal or hold the coveted position of king and are searching the kingdom for solutions? Does it seem simple from the throne? You know bring ‘em in, slay the dragon, have a big feast and change the kingdom?
If I might have a word with the king…
What you are thinking of is CHARGE.
With good armor and that chosen knight and some fireproofing undergarments you could probably get the dragon. But you also have the problem of that other king guy across the bog, reports (family?) with a history of slaying to get
Continue reading Bring me my Lady/Knight in shining armor- ChaRge becomes ChaNge
There is a trend now that coincides, not a coincidence I think, with the change in the economy, of creating an internal role responsible for change in the organization.
I say disturbing not for the role creation (I laud that) but for the fact that those that I have seen posted- Farmers, Best Buy, Juniper Networks to name a few- are all Director roles. This indicates that the positions are seen as project management roles rather than strategic people positions. Not a pretty picture (and if you are a first horizontal executive considering this, take time to consider the
Continue reading A Disturbing trend in Change Management
What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?
…tempting, but it will be more collaborative to let this have a life of its own.
This was a question I asked on LinkedIn that elicited some interesting responses
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yby9mu2 if you want the full thread
Spurred on by all the comments and Gail’s invitation to add more to the mix I have reopened this question. More context. My view is that it is possible to build structure that gives opportunity for design to support the appropriate method and facilitate various approaches. At times, in stand alone project
Continue reading The design versus method conundrum- Change management firsts
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
Continue reading Change Management as a Corporate Strategic Element
If I were a stakeholder (have been many times) my answer would be something like- A process that clearly illustrates to me the positive effects for both business and people of my contribution.
If I were an executive responsible for change-
The realization of a corporate strategy through productive, efficient utilization of resources.
For Vision to Work it is-
Both of the above plus a change in the organization itself for the better.
Truly successful change management starting at the highest levels and flowing through the organization would:
Develop employees Put a magnifying glass
Continue reading What is successful change management?
Method/approach tends to win out for change management because it is tangible, marketable and can be a baton pass to action and activity. It is an easy way to avoid design/structure. It is based on status quo. Initially, it is less expensive. It can work well for projects that have minimal and visible impact.
Design/structure is, initially at least, less tangible, tougher to measure and easy to own. It is often forced into situations where method has been decided on. It is always a risk and often bucks status quo. It takes the kind of time which can equal
Continue reading Whole Organization Change- Design/Structure face off with Method/Approach
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
