|
|
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 through eye contact and responds with empathy and conviction. It can sometimes irritate your cafe listener. It can sometimes enlighten. It is always dialogic and respectful.
This is a preview of Your “Coffee Persona”- tips for executive communication . Read the full post (324 words, estimated 1:18 mins reading time)
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 little two for one!
Permanent link to this post (105 words, estimated 25 secs reading time)
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.
This is a preview of Paying for High Level Change Management-Upfront, Retained and Direct . Read the full post (392 words, estimated 1:34 mins reading time)
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 (the forte of project management) and as an element of the whole (in terms of both work and purpose). Because it is this spatial connection that can trigger and reinforce motivation.
This is a preview of Communicating Change- Time, Place and Context . Read the full post (337 words, estimated 1:21 mins reading time)
 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 ahead and Dukes and Duchesses that always seem to be out of earshot.
This is a preview of Bring me my Lady/Knight in shining armor- ChaRge becomes ChaNge . Read the full post (220 words, 1 image, estimated 53 secs reading time)
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 picture before you start the artwork). One of the three now has changed the position to a Senior Director role and posted for a Director (as least they realized after the fact that they started too low in the hierarchy).
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
This is a preview of The design versus method conundrum- Change management firsts . Read the full post (384 words, estimated 1:32 mins reading time)
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.
This is a preview of Change Management as a Corporate Strategic Element . Read the full post (402 words, estimated 1:36 mins reading time)
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:
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 the perception of expensive. For whole organization change avoiding, giving short shrift to (http://preview.tinyurl.com/y89th9r) or sidestepping design/structure will make method/approach become very expensive.
This is a preview of Whole Organization Change- Design/Structure face off with Method/Approach . Read the full post (183 words, estimated 44 secs reading time)
|
|
