|
|
There is a cycle of give and take, supply and demand, within change management that is rarely addressed and often missed. I think it starts with underlying assumptions about what a leader is and what a worker does. It mirrors, in ways, the ongoing grand argument in US politics about “job creators”. What drives the economy demand or capital? Consumers or Business Owners? Do things “trickle down” or filter up (or rise up) because of energetic demand?
I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur (founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007)
Our change parallel:
The “job creators” for change are the owners (interesting it could be the very same people in both examples…). Demand is the energy of the stakeholders (and willingness, and perspective). By themselves through the power of their role leaders will not make change happen- they are not change accomplishers.
What will lead to the accomplishment of change is a feedback loop between those who will do the hands on work and those who envision the change. The more connection there is between stakeholders and their work to leaders and their vision the smoother goes the realization of change.
Back to our comparison:
“Trickle down” when it comes to change has been a complete failure. High paid leader (the “rich” person for this version of the analogy) gets grand idea, passes it off to the next level and waits for the spoils to spread through the organization. I can tell you from my experience whatever is supposed to have trickled down is considerably spoiled by the time it gets to the end stakeholder.
I will admit organic change has not done much better- arguably “trickle up”.
What does work is the virtuous cycle of clarity, explanation, application and energy that comes with leaders understanding demand, in the change context, and doing what they can to feed and encourage that energy and focus.
Leaders, owners of change, understand that you are not change creators- facilitators, messengers, inspirerors maybe, but not creators/accomplishers. Pay attention to that virtuous cycle that comes when stakeholders understand change, can apply it to themselves in some way and can place themselves in context with the work and the end state.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, job creators, leader, stakeholders, trickle down, trickle up, 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
 CM must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Time for change management is not just a moment, a day, a week etc. for something to happen. Time is also process. Time is procedure. Time is transition. Time is flexible.
Use of Time
For your organizational change do you use time like the PMO does-likely down to the half day if not hour? Do you use time like your sales team does- by quarter and year? Do you use time like NASA does- I’m kidding, just had to run the full spectrum.
What you want to do is all of the above. Use NASA time (or something more reasonable within a generation) for long term end states. Use that sense of time for your transformational initiative (singular, please don’t tell me you are trying to do more than one at a time). Use the sales version for programs. Use the PMO version for contained projects (I say that because some projects, like IT and HR, need to spread cross functionally and need more than just the PMO) and within all project, programs, initiatives and transformation.
Keep time on your side by only setting in stone those deadline dates you know you can meet. Because your use and perspective of time says something to your stakeholders. Trust and time go together.
Meaning of Time
Time has different meaning in different contexts. The more definitive, at 10:00 on this day this will happen, the more task oriented. But also less flexible. Help your stakeholders to understand when time aligns with task, when it aligns with process and when it aligns with the future. Get them all to connect and the meaning of time can be flexible and definitive.
Announcement of Times
As soon as you announce time, unless you have pursued times meaning within your organization, you effect the change process. If that date is well thought out, backed by gathering of expertise, supported by a budget and realistic (keeping in mind people and the way they jump in and jump out of change) then announcements of time can be powerful. Live up to the date, live up to the promise and, even better, do it together as a talented organization and you will arrive at end states. And be able to do it again the next time.
Time can be about tasks, time can be about operations, time can be about long term strategy and end states. Know the difference. Communicate the difference. Leverage the difference so that when you do pick exact times your pick of time sticks. Do so a few times and you will give yourself the flexibility to have time frames. Your change will arrive just in time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Context, organizational change, strategy
What would it look like if change, started from scratch, was done right?
- Find a senior change management consultant for a trusted advisor.
- Answer why.
- Connect to expertise.
- Engage.
- Divide the journey into parts.
- Manage time.
- Cycle your change process.
Trusted Advisor
If you are in the “pre-scratch” spot now is the time to bring in a senior external consultant. My pick, obviously, is an independent consultant ( you can always add other options later, the independent choice will give you both control and flexibility- not so with other options).
Why
Because most organizations dictate it the business case will begin to form quickly. That’s great, it is one side of the why equation. The tough side from a change standpoint is the why for people, especially for individuals and groups. Get that explanation and description clear early (and adapt as you gather feedback from stakeholders).
Expertise
Change requires people.
Helping them to participate, while often difficult, is not the most important thing about the people component.
Expertise is.
I coach young kids soccer; they love it, but we do not always win. I consult for change; people are led to engage, but they do not always know what they are doing.
From scratch determine if you will have the right people for the tasks at hand. The scratch viewpoint of this is a high level, in general picture. As you work back from the end state you will have a better idea of exactly what skills and competencies will be needed on your change journey.
As you move forward (to move backward to move forward again) always keep expertise in mind. People like to know how good they are at their work. People like to be acknowledged for their talent. This is one of the reasons people participate (I think the most powerful of the list). Use expertise in a human way to get to your business goals.
Engage
Once you have a broad view of expertise in relation to your change you can engage. Most change initiatives do not engage very well or at all early enough. There is fear of transparency and it clouds approach. Trust yourself. Do so and your stakeholders will trust you and so the change.
Now engage to gather perspective, information and gauge energy (call it “readiness” if you have to) as the foundation for your end state(s) description. Expertise should be your guiding banner (not some false inclusion approach). You value the talent you have; you engage with that talent to get to mutual goals. A great start for change from scratch.
Phases
Don’t let your PMO and project managers get their hands on the change too quickly. Doing do eliminates the chance to have change from scratch. They do a fantastic job, but, remember that expertise thing? Their expertise is in chunking up the business side of the journey and then assigning tasks (actually they tend to be detail oriented and make the tasks first then chunk them into groups). As with all competencies use in the right place at the right time.
Phases help the PMO organize and are the best time to partner CM and PM. Layering of CM within PM by phase works well (as long as you have paid attention to our previous categories and that trusted advisor is there).
Manage Time
Your PMO and PM’s will focus intensely on time and timing. From scratch change requires a different perspective of time. When you mention a moment in time, say an adoption date or for IT the date you turn off the legacy system, things change (a different meaning for the word change). “When” for change should not be addressed officially until you have things lined up clearly (and really understand your stakeholders and the end state). IT engagements especially fall apart if the drop dead date is announced too soon (having a drop dead date is not a good idea in the first place).
From scratch change must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Be realistic about timing. Be flexible about longer time frame pieces of your change. Much like promises, do not force yourself into admitting you made a mistake. And do not encourage mistakes by forcing timing.
Change is Ongoing
And ubiquitous and always going to happen and inevitable. So why not leverage current change for that next one in the future. I don’t mean laying down a turn key process (there is no such thing no matter what that other firm may be telling you). Set up patterns in this change of exchange, interaction, use of expertise and communication that can be replicated and, ideally, culturized for positive effect now and into the future. Make some change management aspects operational.
Change Management from scratch rarely, if ever, happens. We would be living in a different business environment if it did (and I honestly thing, especially in this environment the companies that figure out how to do this will leave their competitors standing still when things pick up).
To start from scratch for change requires a trusted advisor placed contracting with the owner, realistic and transparent why descriptions, connection with expertise, engagement, understanding of time and culturization of the positives. If, as a senior leader, you can figure out how to do this…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
One of the talking points for Change Management is (“thanks” to Kotter) “Sense of Urgency”.
It is better to focus on Sense of Purpose.
A sense of purpose has a goal in mind (ideally an end state). A sense of purpose can smoothly integrate others. A sense of purpose has a controlled forward movement. Contrast that to urgency which tends to have too many short term goals, wraps up others in a confusion of running around and moves sideways more than forward.
How would you go about building a sense of purpose?
- Define end states
- Include development
- Integrate incentives
- Relay stories
- Support with facts if possible
- Acknowledge Emotion
Define end states
Purpose builds over time. A sense of purpose moves toward something on the horizon. The horizon shortens (or at least the distance is understood) when the end state is clear. The process of defining the end state, translating that into the viewers of multiple stakeholders and then planning backwards the steps that need to be filled in is the first exercise for building a sense of purpose for change.
Include development
Long journeys are perfect for growth, skill building and development. Likely that previously defined end state requires one or all. Including development in the plan and implementation builds both individuals and the organization- it adds extra purpose above and beyond the change. What better time to develop talent than in the process of growing toward a future? In fact that real world connection often means the difference between simply training (building skills) to developing (applying those skills to varying situations).
Integrate incentives
It is possible to have purpose without incentive or reward (teachers and non- profit workers come to mind). It could be argued that purpose is stronger and more efficient when rewarded. The key or change is to have incentive truly support both the change and the individual. That order is important. Many times incentives are figured out at an individual level and then do not connect to the change. Stakeholders see right through that- especially if you have made the mistake of rewarding status quo rather than competency and task building for end states.
Relay stories
Purpose works well when shared. It also works better when improvement from something that happened before seems possible. Stories convey that. “This is what happened” illustrations help for strategy and tactics for change.
And don’t forget the stories that happen during the change. Many initiatives are years long- lots of stories to build purpose. Because of the length many initiatives rotate stakeholders, and many tasks and procedures get repeated. Stories can help make round two even more successful.
Support with facts if possible
Some develop purpose only after seeing facts that show possibility. Some like facts to illustrate they made the right decisions. Some like facts to be able to see the end state in a realistic and empirical way. Gather and use facts to build purpose. Facts don’t lie… unless they are out of context. Context is crucial for sense of purpose. Show the connection between your facts and the end state and make that connection irrefutable.
Acknowledge Emotion
And be ready for those who like to trust, who like emotion, who believe in gut feelings or who are too impatient for the time it takes to gather facts (or do not trust the gatherers).
Acknowledge resistance. And then address it to build the strongest sense of purpose you will ever get (converts are usually fanatics- that is good in our case). Acknowledge and feed excitement and energy. Positive feels light; negative feels heavy. Heavy change rarely has a sense of purpose.
Aim to convert resistance to positive energy. Feed excitement (just be careful of that urgency thing- that is a different kind of excitement).
Sense of purpose leads individuals to work together to get to end states. It is much more effective than sense of urgency and when managed well builds the organization for the next change (as well as increasing the effectiveness of the current initiative).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, change management strategy, corporate change management, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
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
Tactical Change Management layers over project management and the organizations project process. It is heavily focused on adoption, timing and a command and control approach.
Some characteristics of Tactical CM (TCM):
- Leadership comes from middle management
- Communication cascades
- External resources are contracted
- Usually templated
Leadership comes from middle management
TCM is led by middle managers. Leadership visibility is rarely above Director level. This happens for two reasons, one positive and one detrimental to change.
The first is that the change is operational, technical or functionally focused and it makes sense to have leadership visibility come from the hands-on leaders. For many large organizations those leaders also hold some or all of the purse strings for certain projects so there is a lower level ownership component.
The second is that the change is organic. Organic change bubbles up from inside the organization. Sometimes it pulls senior leaders along, sometimes it just happens without them. Change like this can happen, but it is a long haul. Success does not typically come from a tactical approach. But that is what these types of leaders are comfortable with, and to be fair, that is what they are compensated for.
Communication cascades
Lacking full senior leadership support and visibility mid level leaders must pass responsibility to others. That comes with a command and control, cascading approach for both communication and leadership. A core project team creates (comms., training etc.) and then passes to the next level for implementation.
This has the advantage of leveraging lack of resources (TCM is always under budgeted). The disadvantage is that each successive cascade weakens the original content, training or message. The weakening typically is a status quo cascade as each level tailors things to their own preferences effectively avoiding non-tactical change management.
External resources are contracted
This is command and control- avoid risk. It is managed by project managers and leaders who operate under that approach. A fantastic perspective and process for functional and operational projects (clearly defined with no major human element risks). In keeping with this approach external resources (especially change management consultants) are sourced and expected to be contractors- basically employees. Change management does not work well when those changing are also managing the change with no external input. Non- consultative change which TCM is typically runs into problems.
Anything that questions the PMO approach is a risk. PM’s are best at controlling risk. Change management practitioners, especially consultative ones, are a major risk for PM’s. Of course taking this approach is a risk of its own (see Strategic Change Management upcoming post).
Usually templated
TCM falls prey (I know a harsh word, but I have seen the results) to “turn key” templated change methods. For projects, again with little people risk, this can work fantastic (and is very helpful with understaffing). Templated methods used on larger, broader initiatives and programs miss many pieces of the change management equation. They also illuminate the command and control approach which is seen by stakeholders as cold and corporate (not the kind of perspective you want from the people you are trying to control).
Templated approaches usually push “certified” consultants. The certification is, of course, a double down on the original approach which skimps on true CM resources. The best change management consultants (best being both most successful adoption percentages and adding to the strength of the organization with each change) are not certified and only take those “courses” if the client insists on it. That is not to say that those “certified” cannot be good consultants just that the certification does not make a good consultant and is not necessary to be a good consultant (an advanced degree and experience is a different story).
Pros:
Controlled, regimented process- again good for situations where a project focus makes sense.
Frees senior leaders to work on strategy- well managed tactical change with developing consultants helping while senior consultants work with senior leaders on larger strategic change can be a perfect match and set of partnerships.
Measurable and manageable- is great for projects, but one outlier person can make a mess of the numbers quickly (understanding and avoiding this is the forte of change management practitioners, but they have to have high level exposure to be effective).
Cons:
Internally focused- reinforces status quo. Very few changes benefit from this.
Misses ownership component- even small change moves slower when senior leadership is absent or hands off.
Is really just project management- external resources are so controlled and monitored that external influence is squelched. This reduces risk at a low level and increases it at a broader level.
Tactical change is a measured, controlled process that typically follows templated methods. It is comfortable for middle managers, pushes few buttons and can be very effective for functional project level change. It runs into big problems when it is used for change that is broad, transformational and cross functional.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change failure, change tactics, External Consultant, tactical change management
This is one of those words that looks and sounds a little like its meaning. It is a heavy word that stays on your tongue too long.
Definition:
To endure.
Merriam Webster
The same word origins (this is one of the oldest Middle English words still in use- not sure where…) created the word tolerate.
“There was now temptation to resist, as well as pain to thole.
Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 novel Kidnapped.
Or to put the word in context with change:
“He was uncomfortable with this new organizational change, but was tholing it to avoid confrontation.”
It would be fantastic if every organizational change worked for each individual in some way. Rarely does this happen. So we could say there will always be a need for tolerance, some endurance and a little thole. Change has a lot to do with acceptance, on many levels. Paying attention to the need for some stakeholders to endure makes sense as a change tactic.
Tips for managing tolerance:
- Communicate timing. Awareness and understanding make enduring much easier.
- Keep things moving. Endurance for anything (I think of mile 20 in marathons) requires a step by step movement forward. Stop and you may be finished.
- Reward. Who says you have to be fully engaged in any change? Those who participate, at any level even with thole, should be acknowledged in some way. Just be careful not to call out the things they are tolerating…
- Engage. I have a hard time with this word because consultant market-speak has twisted it. My positive view of engagement is a process and pattern that keeps leadership visible and present. Don’t signal this, but if you as the leader are having to do a little tholing it does not hurt to have others see you march forward.
Too often obstacles, disagreement, “resistance” cause leadership to back away, or worse to push harder. Getting past those barriers, tholing, is part of the change process.
Maybe some things, like this word, are best left in the past. Tolerate, endure and, yes thole are things you might want to look for and avoid in your change efforts. Although look at the antonyms for tolerate and you will see they are worse. Tholing may be a first step toward awareness for those stubborn stakeholders.
Technorati Tags: change excercise, Communication, engagement, executive communications, resistance to change
Trusted advisor explored one part of the equation.
Trust takes at least two people.
The trust summary for change management consulting is not complete without exploring the role of Trusted Partner.
First disclosure: I feel like I have had some harsh critique of leadership and leaders lately. The economy and the selfish patterns in society the last 15+ years have bred these problems. I honestly think people are inherently good and can be trusted. Environments that make it easy to be selfish and greedy quickly wear down the potential for trust.
Trusted Partner
A trusted partner must understand that business works when individuals have a chance to use their talent and skills; individuals enjoy work when business leverages their capability for gain (which creates profit for all). Change is a people/business partnership. Too much emphasis on either side of this pairing will erode trust.
When I am evaluating clients my list of trust includes:
- Their visibility in the organization
- Their track record
- Their demeanor
- Their spot on the org. chart
Their visibility in the organization
What does the potential partner think those in the organization see and say about them? If what I hear from stakeholders matches closely with what the leader says trust is likely.
Do they like to take charge and get credit for it? Do they transfer that perspective to the management of others? A leader, I think, should have balance of confidence and humility. Confidence helps with decision making; humility is the foundation for empowerment.
Their track record
What have they done in terms of leadership and how much of that was change (and how big was the change)? An aspect of trust for me personally is how well someone learns. To be a Trusted Partner a client must be able to stretch, accept certain things and try others. Without that I cannot be a Trusted Advisor- more like a trusted contractor (lower case intentional).
They do not have to bring a successful track record to the table. They rose to where they are, there is a reason for that. Mistakes and/or things that could be called not successful can still accomplish a lot on the people side. There is also lessons to be learned for the business side.
A leader ready to look at the past bad and good and learn from it for the future can be trusted (and can be consulted to and partnered with).
Their demeanor
Personality is probably impossible to change. Demeanor has some flex. Willingness to understand and listen to others in order to be successful and improve is a quality for trust.
If a potential client has a demeanor that I am comfortable with trust begins early. For me respect can overweigh a lot of things, demeanor being one of them. If this leader has done things for business and for people that are commendable demeanor becomes secondary. In fact if they have been strong for one side of the equation and are asking for help with the other we have an excellent start for a trusted partnership.
Their spot on the org. chart
Trust, for me, here has to do with the leverage and power they really have compared to where they think they are (or should be) and where they ACTUALLY are on the org. chart.
If they are being overpowered for their position that says something (not always bad- those I have considered excellent people leaders are often overpowered by the heavy business side/greedy competition). If they are not leveraging their spot on the chart that says something else.
If they can be shown where they are, where they should be and where others see them and then look to improve that I personally can trust them.
Those are my little consulting measures. What about our previous trust list from this perspective? My gauge there has as much to do with trust about the initiative as it does about the person I might contract/partner with.
The list of bullets from the trust post:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
Integrity
Will they be willing to do things after consultation that they will have to stand by? Are they bold enough and willing to take the risk of being checked on whether they do what they say they will?
Strength
They have to have some kind of strength to have risen to where they are. What is it? Does that strength fit the environment/end state they are going to work toward? Are they strong enough to adapt? It can often be important to gauge what they see as strong in others. Again does that line up with the new scenario off in the future?
Ability
Is all this even possible? Do they have the ability and have they built that in others? If not trust will have to be there to absorb the back and forth of what needs to be built and what does not. If there ability is short they may not understand what is needed. A Trusted Partner would be able to make the leap of understanding necessary.
Surety
If they have no connection to the money and most of the time if they are not the owner then they cannot be a Trusted Partner as least for the larger scale change. They can be at a scaled down tactical level though.
If they are the owner like our trust explanation, have they provided enough surety for this change to be possible? We are talking about currency at this point, but what about the currency of their own? How much of themselves are they willing to invest (in both the change and the trusted partnership)?
Charisma
Will people follow this person? Because they trust them or blindly?
Many a founder CEO has a bit of a cult following. The loyal lemmings tend to follow them over the cliff when the organization gets to big for the founders ability. Still, not too worry, the lemmings will follow just as quickly when the leader builds his/her ability and constructs change that makes sense.
And charisma is not really necessary for trust or change anyway (it is just seasoning).
Presence
Are they visible in the organization?
It is hard to trust someone who hides out. It is hard to trust someone who passes the buck. It is hard to trust someone who barks orders from the darkness.
But that too can change. There are many quiet leaders out there. I often trust that presence can be felt through others. Sometimes that is the way it should be for the change to happen.
Trust is a two way street when it comes to consulting. On one side is the Advisor on the other the Partner. Trust is the spot in the middle where they meet. A trusted partnership happens when both parties can go back and forth across the line.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, vision to work
Heather Stagl has a fun post over at Enclaria about smoke detectors and urgency- “The Urgency Detector. “
She has excellent points:
- Urgency has a purpose.
- Urgency can alleviate unpleasantness.
- Urgency is continual.
- Urgency is not emergency.
- You have to feel urgency.
- You have to know what the urgency requires.
- Urgency has to have boundaries (a story of a wolf crying comes to mind).
If this were a corporation and I was consulting its leaders the first thing I would ask is, “how often do you change the batteries?”
(and think in my head, “you do realize you can avoid that incredibly loud beeping with a schedule of battery replacement.”)
So here is my corporate list to play off of hers:
- Urgency often has no purpose but to get people doing something (while the fire burns away…)
- Urgency can feel good but wears off (like wine and runners high).
- Urgency is continual (see previous bullet this is not a good thing).
- Urgency is usually treated something like emergency, if only for little fire drills everywhere.
- It is impossible NOT to feel when urgency is in the air (uncomfortable is the feeling I am thinking).
- It would help to know what the urgency requires and to have that make sense… where have I seen those two words written?
- Urgency rarely has any boundaries, especially if it heats everyone up so much they can’t stay still.
Some other synonym (since the word urgency got tainted when it became part of a certain list of 8 things…) might be in order because there is some good in Heathers list (and as I said it is a great list). How about importunateness? It is hard to say, a little confusing and takes awhile to figure out. Even though it has the same meaning it just seems less hurried.
Urgency gets a response like a fire alarm going off at night. In your home if you have a schedule to replace the batteries you can avoid false urgency. In your organization you might be able to do something similar before all your little fires start.
Technorati Tags: change failure, engagement, resistance to change
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
