|
|
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
One of the things that you will not likely see on the “70% Change Failure List” is an underlying Us and Them perspective. I see this on almost all engagements, this grouping propensity seems to be one of those “Human Nature” things.
Us = Leadership or the project team or the change management consultants (in those rare cases where there is more than one) or a functional group.
Them = Everyone else or line stakeholders or the Resistors or that other function or a vague competitor (that one might be OK for building camaraderie against a common foe).
What’s wrong with Us and Them viewpoints?
- Command and control
- Exclusion
- Transparency
- Trust
- Responsibility
Command and control
The most common pairing is Leaders and Stakeholders (I almost put “vs.”). Leadership has either set up or gotten used to telling people what to do. Since that command is passed to the next level to implement “people” never has to be an actual person. Stakeholders see the disconnect.
Because of the disconnect everything must be controlled to a different degree than it would have to be if everyone was in this together. The more you control the more a “them” perspective becomes obvious. Soon it will be leaders VS. stakeholders.
Exclusion
This can come with all of our pairs, often not on purpose just in the interest of expediency. Functions exclude other functions. The change team can exclude many (they should know better!). Leaders exclude on purpose to reduce competition. Individuals exclude to retain power.
Exclusion in general is the bane of change.
Exclusion makes things confusing, unclear and can be a first step toward fear and gossip. Change does not go well with gossip and fear.
Transparency
Transparency can kill fear and stifle gossip. The opposite, which is what you get when us and them is woven into your approach, feeds fear. Complete openness is never possible in business. A higher level than exists in most organizations is. Reveal what you can at the right time. The way you reveal information, facts, data and directions can show that everyone is working together toward similar end states.
Because if you don’t you lose trust.
Without trust you will have a hard time getting the necessary work done. Signal a “them” perspective, watch now you will see this EVERYWHERE, and you have eliminated the chance for full trust. If they are them then you, already, do not trust. Why should they?
Responsibility
When there is an us and them perspective responsibility gets passed from one group to the next, or one person to the next. Often the us group is doing the thinking and the planning while the them group is supposed to just listen to orders and then work their you-know-what’s off.
This creates a “you-think-you-know-everything” view. If separation exists between stakeholder and some other group it will feel condescending to those tasked with the work.
If the shelves aren’t stocked or the cash registers aren’t manned, or the data is not entered or the code is not written or the customer is not cared for, there is no business and so there will be no change. Those most responsible, really, are the line stakeholders- they are most often the “them”.
It is very easy to fall into an Us and Them perspective. Working teams do that with stakeholders, leaders do it with “followers” and change practitioners do it with those they are supposed to be working with. Watch yourself and look closely at your model. Do you have us and them embedded to the point where it may feel like us VS. them to some?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, engagement, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
Tactics definition: any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. Dictionary.com
Following these tips will DEFINITLY give you an advantage. Your competitors are not paying attention to this:
- Decrease the distance between leaders and individual stakeholders
- Base steps toward the end state on expertise
- Use change to build competencies
- Adapt your PM system to reflect the end state
- Spend more time talking and less time writing things down
Leadership distance
Any procedure, system or approach that connects stakeholders more directly with leadership will give you an advantage. A regular update from executives in a newsletter or on the project website is the easiest, lowest level tactic. The same regularity in person, or at least with an interactive virtual session is second. Most effective is presence, in person, throughout the initiative in a variety of places for a variety of reasons (connecting the change to the end state and operations).
Expertise
Think expertise for all of the steps of your plan.
Each task in a plan requires a person with skill. Leverage, build and acknowledge both skill and the use of skill (competency) in any way you can.
Competencies
Same as expertise, but the extension- knowing and using capability and capacity. Competencies, and the individuals that carry them, need to be tactically spread onto the change management chessboard. Since business is ultimately a competition you may need tactical moves to protect lack of competency. Enter external consultants for helping you figure that out and contractors to temporarily add missing competencies.
Performance Management
Your performance management system is the record of how well you are doing with tactics. Each suggestions/goal/reward connects with an overall strategy. Those little tactical pieces, developed and accomplished by individuals, should be recorded, monitored and adjusted through the PM system.
Look in hindsight back when you finish change. Did your PM roadmaps build to the end state or just reinforce a subjective status quo?
Dialogue/Communication
Tactical Change Management relies heavily on templates and deliverables (and staying parked in a cubicle filling them out). Change tactics (whether with that form of CM or as part of a broader strategy) should focus on spending the right amount of time in person connecting, explaining end states to and guiding stakeholders. You are looking to address all of the learning styles and to have people hear, see, read, and, in a perfect world, feel and touch your end state, your plan and the steps to get there.
Gaining advantage with change and successfully getting to end states requires a long series of tactical moves, determined through a strong strategic plan with an early and throughout change process. Decreasing the distance between leaders and stakeholders; using expertise; building competencies; keeping track of and rewarding those skills and communicating in multiple ways as close to in person as possible will give you advantage and speed your change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
Viable:
1. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses
2. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
Viability:
the capacity to operate or be sustained: The viability of the company was guaranteed by the success of its new product.
Dictionary.com
Viable Change
Is change that can grab participation.
It is change that challenges, stimulates and helps individuals to grow.
Change that is viable stretches strategy, people, available tactics and leadership.
Viable change can be vivid, real or stimulating and it can be vivid, real AND stimulating. If it does so in connection with intellect and imagination then, just maybe, the end state itself will also be viable.
Change Viability
If so then that end state, that result of the change should be sustainable. The new environment should be able to operate for the benefit and profit of both individuals (all, not just leadership) and the organization of stakeholders, owners and shareholders.
An important component of Change Viability is operations. Viable Change to have Change Viability must entwine with operations. It must be so connected to imagination and a workable future that operations adapts and grows with it.
Viable change and change that is viable must be inextricably mixed with operations. Then it can be workable and practical (to the extent that grand change is practical in the moment) and stimulate at an individual level.
Technorati Tags: change management strategy, Change Strategy, vision to work
 If this is the year of the Change Agent then it is likely to also be the year for Change Management Snake Oil salesmen. Yes completely sexist, I do not think I have ever met a women selling snake oil.
To be fair those pushing dicey change approaches aren’t actually delivering the fix in a bottle, but the promises often sound that simple.
It often seems everyone wants to be a Change Agent. Those “selling the oil” seem to think it takes one of two things: pseudo certification or having been a stakeholder during change.
The first typically creates someone trained for methods that were derived from interviewing those very people who led change. Status quo approaches creating a training program to be spread to many others (more for revenue than effective change management).
The second is a little of the same with a loud voice behind it.
If I were a client and a consultant (especially a newly minted one) dangled the elixir in front of me I would want to know where they had been placed for previous engagements, how long they were there (long is not necessarily good) and when they arrived. I would also want to know what kind of education was presented to clients to be able to get those roles. And I would want to know about any small things that built on this foundation- training roles, management roles, internal roles, big consulting firm roles etc.
Changes are not poured out of a bottle.
As a leader do not fall prey to the traveling salesman with the flashy cure.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, certification, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, training
One of the topics in discussion groups this year was, “Change Management, science or art?”. As you can imagine the conversation gets heated quickly with strong positions for each side. People can be measured, but they can quickly change their perspective and mess up results. The science of change needs artists and the artistic side of change often needs numbers for support.
I will use this blog as a mini example.
If I look at the stats for horizontalchange.com can I figure out my stakeholders? If I was considering change (a redesign, a focus on certain topics, starting series to stay consistent with a topic, etc.) could I pick the correct changes from stats?
Horizontalchange.com stats to the end of 2011
Most visited posts:
- Change Management End State Focus
- Change Management Quick Wins
- Explaining Change Management
- For Change Management 2011 already looks a little different
- 5 Factual Stages of Happiness- Kubler-Ross life giving replacements
- The “Hard” side of change management- Reflections on how change has changed
- We do not need Change Management
- Change Management Career Paths- Secrets revealed
- Rates, Fees, Time and Value- the Consultant Client Contract
- Change Management Deliverables
I could ask some of the same questions for this example that apply to a change management initiative:
- Who are the stakeholders?
- What is important to them?
- What are they looking for?
- What information are they missing?
- Do they understand the current environment, the change, possible end states?
Who are the stakeholders?
This list, like a lot of information gathered from form type stakeholder assessments, says a lot, but only if you make assumptions (more art than science even with the stats). White is the focus of the post, green possible stakeholders:
- A different approach, perspective and attitude toward change. Leaders, the curious, practitioners, competitors, academics
- Execution. Mid level leaders, internal practitioners
- What is this Change Management thing and how do I tell others about it? Could be any stakeholder
- What is the current environment? Practitioners
- Historical comparison, tie and a familiar name/concept. Academics, seasoned practitioners, stakeholders outside the change arena (like psychologists)
- The evolution of change management. New practitioners, the original writers of the article, academics
- The argument against CM. Naysayers, internal stakeholders of change, anyone trying to sell or discredit CM
- How to break into the field. College students, new practitioners, those considering a career switch, recruiters
- What does this cost? Potential clients, competitors, external practitioners
- What exactly will change management produce in terms of tangibles? Clients, mid level leaders, staffing firms
From this information we really have no idea who the stakeholders are. Like most initiative the range of stakeholder types is probably broad. This list of ten could be a reading list for any one of the groups if they were looking for a broad base of introductory information.
What is important to them?
It is a little easier to garner importance. This list covers what CM is, where it came from, how to explain it, what to expect in terms of output, how to get into the profession and cost. Like most change it is the list of why, who, where, what, when and how.
What are they looking for?
Readers are looking for understanding, tips, explanation of new approaches, the nitty-gritty of delivery/execution and the basis for the use of change management (or not).
What information are they missing?
Obviously the information the posts represent, but dig deeper. This blog is about positive, end state change. That flies in the face of most change methods and approaches (theory has not really been studied scientifically- no Prosci does not qualify). The top post addresses the first the others have more to do with information that feeds the second.
Stakeholders do not always know what they are missing. You often have to feed them the information they are comfortable with while at the same time leading them to an understanding of the things they do not know- and are not aware they need to understand.
Do they understand the current environment, the change, possible end states?
This question tags onto, or maybe precedes the last. Practitioners and leaders need to be open to listen to stakeholders in order to understand where they are coming from, which spot they are starting with, so end states will make sense.
Do these stats reveal anything? Can I use some science to plan for change? Yes and not really.
If this was a change initiative and I was to rely on the stats I would need to make a lot of assumptions. If I am an internal leader or practitioner making those assumptions our change not only switched from science to art it turned into a paint by numbers process. I will steer things my way, consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously.
Now imagine if I could reach out in some way to these readers/stakeholders to cater the change to them. I know the end state I would like, but there is a lot of room for flexibility of content, process and structure (and timing)- just like big organizational change.
Stats can help change. They can paint pictures, they can help frame arguments, they can be support for cost. Nothing matches the art of interaction with stakeholders though.
Technorati Tags: Examples, stakeholders, statistics, stats
Previous parts to this series addressed: Consultant to Client questions and Client to Consultant questions.
Today’s post is about a secondary (but no less important) client, the implementary leader.
This is the person that the owner looks to for execution.
It is important to make the distinction between the two. Stakeholders know the difference and respond accordingly (“response” sometimes means do nothing at all or at least only fake doing things). The implementary leader is tasked with, and measured by, getting things done. They must make the translation(s) from strategy to work to end state. They should not be the actual client for a change management consultant- everyone knows where the money comes from.
Questions from the consultant help flesh out the perspective of this client, start to define their role in different terms than the organization may have used in the past and help them to begin understanding how they can fill their mixed strategy and execution responsibilities.
- What does this change mean to you?
- What is your role in the organization?
- What is your role in this change?
- How are you measured?
- How would you describe your relationship to the owner?
- How would you describe your relationship with stakeholders?
What does this change mean to you?
This is a wide open question that will reveal how they see this whole change thing- both THIS change and change management in general.
If they begin crafting a, “how this makes sense to me” message you have a good head start. If they spend more time explaining themselves in terms of the organization you may have some work to do. This is a role that must constantly switch from operations to strategy/change/the future. If they are not used to that pattern help will be in order.
It is helpful if their answer says something about how important this role is for their career. Change management works best when it calls out, uses and leverages the skill, strength and competencies of individual stakeholders. The best place to start that pattern is with our two clients. We could debate over which one will have the most influence. The effect has to do with stretching into uncharted territory and trust from stakeholders.
What is your role in the organization?
This always produces interesting responses.
Do they see themselves as the real leader (because the owner conveniently disappears when the going gets tough)? Are they intensely task focused with their answer? Do they give a business answer, a people answer or both?
You may not see this yet as the consultant but their answer will reveal how much they truly understand the combination of the organization, their role and the end state. Likely they will get the first and be vague on the second and third (especially the end state- rarely does anyone have a good answer the first time around).
What is your role in this change?
This will be a business answer, which is fine.
This should be something like, “I am the translator of strategy to action”; “This will require understanding and then the use of talent. It is my responsibility to tie the two together”; “This change has to make sense for each individual, it is my responsibility to find a way to have that happen”, etc.
They will need to have a clear understanding of the strength (and or weakness) of the owner. They will need to understand the change. They will need to place themselves in the stakeholders spot. Then they will need to tie that all together- that is their role.
How are you measured?
The problem is that is not what they are or will be measured on.
They will be measured by time (not a good measurement when individuals and change are involved). The faster things happen the more credit they will get. I said “things” not the change. They need to figure out (likely with the consultants help) how to satisfy the things that give them compensation, illustrate the things tied to change that it would make sense for them to be measured on and get the change to happen as smoothly and quickly as possible.
How would you describe your relationship to the owner?
Their connection to the owner is important.
It is fantastic if there is a true partnership. Stakeholders are wise and see very well. If that partnership exists and both individuals can give their own “make sense” explanation of the change then people listen, people respond and the necessary work can happen.
If they do not have a partnership then the implementary client must carry the load. Organic change does happen and can work. When that is the environment the implementary leader is the “owner”- without the cash, without the standing and without official political leverage.
How would you describe your relationship with stakeholders?
I personally like this one because it reveals this persons level of empathy.
A good answer is part human connection and part business. This role must address both. A good implementary leader is both command and control and empowering. Their relationship with the stakeholders of the this change balanced against the timeline and the list of things that need to get done will determine when they command and when they guide. If they do not understand that relationship they will likely choose the wrong approach at all the wrong times.
The implementary leader must possess and use a mixed set of skills and competencies. One minute they are strategic and the next tactical. One minute they are the visible leader the next just one of the many stakeholders. With one statement they can explain the make sense nature of the change for themselves. With one question to the stakeholder they can see if they have made the translation from strategy to action. The questions the consultant asks can reveal the implementary leaders capability and capacity or this change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, makes sense change, strategic change management, strategy, tactical change management, tactics, vision to work
This is part two for horizontal change strategy questions. Part 1 asked Consultant to Client questions.
I am assuming the client is the owner (pays for the change, is seen by stakeholders as the top executive connected to the change). Later posts will look at implementary clients and their questions.
- What has your role been for change in the past?
- Is change management a science or art?
- What tools do you use?
- Define change management
- What do you think keeps change from happening?
What has your role been for change in the past?
Depending on the type of change you are pursuing you may look for different answers to this question.
I this is a big, high, broad (truly in need of a horizontal approach) transformation you want the answer to be: facilitator, mentor, consultative support, planner, organizer, rover, “disconnected” external resource. You are looking for an external voice and perspective to help scout the path, alert you to obstacles and help to build YOUR ownership of the change.
If this is smaller horizontal change (say within a big function) the answer can be: Director of Change Management, Change Management Consultant, add your own internal monikers or the first answer. Because change is about a new status quo (no matter how big or small) I personally think you HAVE to have an external guide.
You might want to add some extra questions in about going native, were they in a contracting role (they will be much less consultative), how big/how high/ how important were the initiatives, did they work with clients who understand change, etc.
Is change management a science or art?
Perspective is crucial for change management. It guides assumptions which then dictates approach. Think of the positive people you know. Think of the negative people you know (sorry to make you do that). Which one do you want to work with you?
Those who see CM as more art than science will fall in the positive category (yes generalization). The “scientists” in the bunch not so much so. What is important is how they will be received by the stakeholders in relation to the change. Stakeholders usually feel like guinea pigs with the scientists. In fairness they may feel like they landed at a hippie retreat with the artists.
The answer you want is, “I think CM is an art practiced best by those who understands where science might fit in.”
Smart CM artists know when to use science. By definition someone with a scientific perspective must be less creative and group and lump things together to support their hypothesis (in this case that means their perspective). People, individuals, your stakeholders, see themselves as unique- that “lumping” thing does not usually go over too well.
What tools do you use?
If they are quick to answer, call for the next in line.
If they say, it depends, follow through with some more questions.
Why do you use tools? Or why that specific tool?
What is it you leverage with the use of the tool?
Is this a package of tools that follow your methodology? (If yes, consider putting that second consultant in the batting box).
What you are looking for is a consultant that uses tools to build toward the end state, not just to check off a task, to look busy or to cater to mid level leaders (they love tools and deliverables because that is how you measure their performance). An example: the ubiquitous stakeholder analysis (yes I do use versions of this tool). The stakeholder analysis is a way to see who is involved in the project, when they should be included and to what level that inclusion is realistic. To fill in all those blanks means a lot of interviewing, asking questions, explaining CM and the reason for the tool (and yes maybe a deliverable) and connecting with stakeholders.
When it comes to the tool question look for follow through. No stakeholder ever participated wholeheartedly in change because of a tool.
Define change management
You could ask this first to see how the tool/science/art perspective comes out in the explanation.
If that trio does not come out, next in line, they do not understand change management in context with the past, today and tomorrow.
The answer should have to do with end states rather than gap filling; something about management being a strange word connected to change; a sentence or two about individuals and competency; and a little about where CM is heading.
You want someone who can pull from the past, mix in their own expertise (that came from experience, study and application) and apply that to your specific scenario. (That sentence is actually what change is- history, competency, end state).
What do you think keeps change from happening?
This will be revealing.
And again it could be the first question (especially if your line of consultants to talk to is long).
If they say people, if they mention resistance, if they put blame strictly on leaders, if they miss process, structure and competency… next in line.
What keeps change from happening are all the things built in to your organization that reinforce status quo. Once those things are built, working on the people (you know those “resistors”) is putting a band-aid on a deep wound.
If they respond, “in your organization?” and then say, “it could be you”, hire them.
Designing a horizontal change strategy, especially if a change entity is to be built as part of the plan, requires a consultant with an incredibly broad experience set, and a competency set to match. That same broad strategic expert will also need an empathetic, individual, tactical perspective to help you come up with a strategy that leads you to end states and can be executed.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
“Questions to ask for Horizontal Change Management Strategy” was a search to our site. Intriguing it is, and the seed for multiple blog posts.
- What is the organizations change history?
- How “visible” is the CEO?
- What does your performance management system measure?
- What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
- To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
What is the organizations change history?
History is the foundation for change.
In the positive sense it is a series of successes and mistakes that made the organization profitable and successful. Less positive it is a pattern, or set of patterns, that does not work for the future. A horizontal change strategy must be malleable. If that is not in the organizations history lots of questions will have to turn into dialogue and plans to change patterns.
A subset question here would be, “What is your (client) change history?”. How this client (I am assuming for this post that the client is the owner of the change) has dealt with change on their own and with this company is an absolutely crucial element for horizontal change.
How “visible” is the CEO?
How visible in terms of people actually seeing them or reading things from them and visibility connected to work efforts. Is this a founder CEO who has his/her mitts on everything that happens in the organization? Is this a new CEO? Is this a CEO that came from an acquiring company (that now has the grand vision of togetherness and cross functional collaboration)?
The visibility of the CEO may have to adapt as part of the horizontal change strategy. The range will be from more visibility less hands on to more hands on less visibility depending on where the organization is in its history and how this CEO fits into that picture (and of course what the end state might look like).
What does your performance management system measure?
The first question is really, “Do you have a performance management system?”. The answer is always yes which is too bad.
Do you measure deliverables? Do you measure short term (not good for horizontal strategy- not good for any strategy really)? Do you measure individually? Are your measures subjective? Do you measure to retain or cull?
Your PM system is the most crucial element for horizontal change. Not addressing and revamping it is almost a no-go for horizontal alignment.
What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
Yes you have an org. chart even if it is not printed or posted.
You have the formal version and you have the informal version(s). If you are lucky the informal is more horizontal than you expected. I often find a lot of organic bartering and exchange in the middle of those informal charts.
The significance of these two types of people maps is important to horizontal change.
Are you calling our your silo-ed nature with the placement of the boxes? Is there anything in that chart that shows cross collaborative connections?
Don’t think that you have to somehow switch to a lovely flat line of boxes because everyone is going to work together in a matrix (the matrix does not exist- anywhere except in a garage with a startup and even that is short lived to the point where the garage door must open). Functions are IMPORTANT. It is within the functional structure that talent, competency and skill shine- especially at the individual level.
You can keep a functional hierarchy with horizontal strategy. It just takes some crafting and messaging to have that work effectively.
To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
See the second question. Go back to the first. Has the middle of your company taken on a life of its own? Are things scaling up? (scaling up is the process of getting permission from leaders through “executive presentations”- lots of patterns, most detrimental, follow this adaptation by middle managers).
Devolved in this question will likely raise feathers (not with the owner client but with those middle managers). When an organization has a lot of organic change it is a signal. It is also a light shining on the ways in which people are working around the status quo. Some of those ways will be beneficial for your horizontal change strategy, some will not. All of them will be revealing.
There are many many more questions. With consultants the questions never end.
In order to design a horizontal strategy that will actually work, questions must dig into root causes of problems and start a pattern of asking why. Why questions are a specific kind of question to elicit perspective, reasoning and feedback. They also help pull out actual fact versus subjective opinion. Many of the questions will have to do with history, the owner of the change, the CEO and individuals working to accomplish.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, Change Strategy, corporate change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
When it comes to change management and work in general in organizations there is a lot more going on than the definition reveals:
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
2: capacity for belief <strains her reader’s credibility — Times Literary Supplement>
If we assume credibility is necessary to move change forward the Websters’ definition tells us there must be the capacity for belief for stakeholders and an inspiration for belief from something (that something carries a scale to measure the quality of the inspiration).
Belief
Certainly helps for participation.
The full-bore-excited-champion of the change likely has a strong belief they are doing the right things for the right reasons. If you put all the stakeholders in a spreadsheet and ordered them by participation level, again its likely that belief is a corresponding measure. If something makes sense (my core approach to change) then people will believe in it. So we might be able to say belief, to some extent, is essential for change.
As stakeholders it may not be possible to build that belief individually. You may need facts. You may need support. You may need a leader- someone who can inspire belief.
It may be important though for us to have the capacity to believe. Or at least the ability to believe within the current scenario matched up against the change.
This is the typical entry point for a change management consultant. History, track records and perception must be considered in developing an explanation, guiding leaders and building the capacity to believe. At the same time CM’s are building the competency to inspire belief.
Some separate thoughts:
There are times when a leader is a charismatic powerful conduit for belief. That’s good (unless they are serving Kool-Aid with the inspiration).
There are times when stakeholders just want to believe. (It only takes one sip of the Kool-Aid to fix misdirected belief though).
There are changes that do not necessarily require belief, and stakeholders who will participate without the power of belief.
I think people want to believe in something. CM’s and internal leaders should understand and language believing in change at a deeper level.
Let’s get back to our word.
“Is this credible.”
“Are they credible.”
“Looking at this change and those guiding it makes me incredulous.” Three random, totally made up quotes, that I am sure I have heard many times.
A little credibility building list for you:
- The change HAS to makes sense.
- The change has to be supported- by leaders, by budget, by timing.
- The change has to be explained and carry real facts (not fudged numbers) to build a foundation for the pragmatics to believe.
- The change has to have emotional appeal (hint: not all changes really do, but at some level they do for individuals- leaders should make that connection and communicate their own emotion).
- As a leader you have to have empathy and you have to do a good job (it is up to you to decide the measure of “good”).
- The organization has to have structure and process that makes it possible to believe in possibility. If it doesn’t then something has to change. P.S.: You can get quick belief with THAT kind of change.
- This is not church- faith will carry you a very short distance.
Change cannot happen without credible leaders, a credible change and systems to support the ability to believe.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
