|
|
Something like 4 million people have looked at this video http://tinyurl.com/2rzrn9. In case it takes more views than that to saturate the You Tube market I give you the link. It is about education, the future (told in 2006) and a whole bunch of fun and intriguing facts. You will also quickly see it is about how things around us change- our environment, our resources, our tools and our capabilities.
And, I have to give this plug, it is an awesome, simple, clear use of black and color.
This is one of the best media presentations I have seen in the way it rolls out information, is fun, has no fluff and uses all of the screen wisely (which to me means lots of space). It uses the space with movement, stillness, appearance of important items at the right time (and not too fast and not too glaring) and, again, color.
Now for the editorial comment-
Juxtapose this video with the way change management is presented and rolled out.
Certainly I will give up the black (not truly a color anyway) but not color in general. Color can be used to categorize communications, illustrate emotion (the whole red is fire, blue is cool strength thing), differentiate timelines, place things in an exact spot (with a relation to things around it) and just plain make things more interesting. Which introduces another aspect of the word color- the commentator kind. CM is typically colorless (maybe due to the automatic assumption that people say no before yes). Start out with a clean lack of color (white) or all color (black) slate and add or take away to build interest, increase attention and make business and change a little more like real life. Yes I mean that metaphorically, but as you can see in the video it works literally for presentations too.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change communications, communicate, Communications, engagement, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
How often do you find yourself spending what you consider too much time installing or putting together the things in your life?
I found myself there today with the installation of a garage hoist (really cool to push a button and have your stuff just magically make its way up into the ceiling- nice end state). As a change manager I know a process made of steps to get to an ending should be clear, understandable and maybe even enjoyable. Thanks to some really weak and un-thought out directions I have found myself swearing through the opposite too many times- add today and it is waaaay too many.
Is it up or down? Do the two holes go on the left or the right? This bolt or that bolt? Is there anything I need to know before I start?
As it happened today I installed not one hoist but two.
A little like a second engagement with the same client. And in the same way the parts had been improved (lag screws instead of ridiculous hex head screws- 4” long and bendable like putty) but the process, and the directions, were still faulty.
What does all this have to do with change?
Directions
All change has at some point ,directions. They may be as literal as a guide to keystrokes or as vague as hidden expectations from a leader. Those directions worded (or pictured) and/or delivered poorly can create real obstacles to change. Real unnecessary obstacles. (There were a few times today when I thought, this is just dumb, I should have used cabinets). A little like, “whose dumb idea from corporate was this?”. Don’t let yourself have a good idea with a clear end state and then use a bad map on poor pavement.
So-
- Use pictures, graphs, images when they can really pinpoint something
- Put everything in context to the preceding and the following
- Put time (knowing it is both a deadline and a constraint) on things when you know it is possible
- If you can try out your directions first by all means do so (including those “marching orders”)
- If it is technical in nature please include someone with design sense
- Use space in pictures, for relationships on time lines and when you are presenting/communicating (because there are always directions built in to those interchanges)
- If there is something strange up ahead call it out early (and suggesting someone “read through the directions first” does not count- two reads of a bad explanation do not make clarity)
- Be careful how many bullet points you use- I had to stick that in there- a little like telling a kid No, you only get so many chances for effect
Look at your change process. See it as a journey with a series of steps. Make those steps clear. Be embarrassed when your stakeholders finish with “a pile of parts leftover”.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change failure, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Change Management like project management, leadership and the implementation of strategy is not immune to insidious scope creep.
Inclusive Creep
“George, over there will need to be involved with this”. “Sue has a hand in this we should include her in this meeting”. Choose your comment, the list is long. All are based on a misunderstanding of what it takes to guide change. The change process has an end state, that is where you are heading. So inclusion is based on the journey to that end state. It is often a fine line in deciding who genuinely needs to be involved.
Guilty until proven productive is the mantra.
As an external I personally assume someone does not need to be there and then look for signs that I might be wrong. Juxtapose that to the internal players (especially those smack in the middle of the organization) who think everyone should be involved. Admittedly there are also practitioners and models that basically say “the more the merrier”. Merry maybe; effective questionable.
Too little, too late, too low Creep
Yesterday’s post http://horizontalchange.com/2010/07/looping-in-leaders-uphill-change-management/ illustrates this phenomenon. When change resources are brought in too late are to few in number and are placed below the owner, creep is essential. It is essential because, obviously, the scope was wrong in the first place. But rather than one by one roping in those left out it is better to hard stop and reevaluate scope. As with consulting contracting if the time and money will not support the new parameters then the change must be reduced in size.
Structural Creep
Think committees. Think pretend matrixed organizations (those that are simply inclusive rather than collaborative for results). Structural creep happens when the organization has built in expansion for every change. Usually created out of fear of change, and the decisions required and the results of bad decisions, structural creep mechanisms can literally stop change. Hence the saying “…where good ideas go to die.”
You cannot typically change structure easily (it is a change initiative all by itself) but as a leader or external practitioner you can help to guide decision-less pieces of the change into that structure while corralling those that need specific things to move forward into smaller, more nimble (and more authoritative) teams.
Creep is the result of poor planning and lack of front end work. Creep is also a symptom of either an incorrectly placed change agent or an inexperienced one who is always a little behind the change timeline or, usually, both.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
This is an interesting relationship. Symbiotic, hopefully. Adversarial, sometimes. Good show, always.
When they are the same person
Usually that means layering CM into the role of the project manager. There is a conflict here. A project manager will by nature work to narrow focus to reduce risk. When focus expands it is to satisfy “the list”. They know that the broader the spread the more the risk because that brings in more People. The more time spent influencing people the less spent managing the timeline of to-do’s.
At times, less than our first combo, the CM is tasked with both roles. There is, perhaps, less of a conflict here. A change practitioner will by nature work to broaden perspective because they know the risk inherent with a narrow focus, especially when it comes to People. The more time spent influencing people the less time spent revisiting the to-do timeline.
My suggestion for both- pay more attention to the effect on people than the list itself. The list is dictated by participation. It is very difficult (hence CM as a career) to dictate participation.
When they are two people at the same horizontal
This is not always managed well in organizations. Because of the view that change is something layered over a project CM is usually added too late. CM comes first; PM comes second. If the operating horizontal is the highest the initiative needs to reach they could start close to the same time as long as the planning is CM to PM. Then the symbiosis begins. Now the PM can focus on strict management of costs, risks and tasks (and they could take or help with the role of measurement along the way). The CM can anticipate and address roadblocks in the rollout of the change (and shepard through a lot of those PM to do’s).
When they are two people at different horizontals
This is the potential adversarial combination. If one has better leverage and connection to leaders and that is not transferred to the other it becomes a battle between “this has to happen now” and “I can tell you why it will not”. When this combo is CM higher and PM lower it has a real chance of working. It is the change practitioner that needs ultimate (whatever that means for the particular initiative) exposure in order to get ahead of people risk. With that exposure and a jump start on the PM work the CM can make project management much easier for everyone involved. This can also be an excellent mentoring arrangement to help mold a version of paragraph one.
If the PM is high and the CM is thrown into the middle of the organization it is… like 90% of the engagements with CM involved. This is the status quo arrangement that makes change management an exercise in futility. It takes a knowledgeable, understanding, flexible PM to work in this arrangement. It takes a senior experienced connected to people CM to orchestrate the partnership. If there is any hint of control of the CM on the part of the PM then there will be an adversarial combination.
In general the change management piece must be guided with a broad perspective which then connects to specific moves forward on the timeline (including specific tasks). The project management piece operates best when it can dispatch talent to task and know, within reason, how long it will take to check off the to-do. If you can get that in the same person (and they will still have time left to sleep) great. Just remember-
CM early and broad.
Technorati Tags: change management, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, vision to work
Changes in organizations are approached in two ways. One is to frost the change over existing operations as an add on. The other is to set the change off to the side and “manage it” as a new and separate thing. They both have their pros and cons.
Layered Change
Layering change over existing operations works well when process and structure need to be tweaked or overturned. Layering makes it easier to have transition periods, to train and adapt stakeholders in their true environments and to set up for sustainability and a foothold for the change.
Change that is layered can also be focused on specific areas or functions. That focus can then be repeated. So layering works well with piloting. Because layers by nature build to a whole, each successive wave can gain improvements from the previous attempts. The succession possibility also makes this a way to train internal leaders on the change process.
Layered change is fantastic for year to year smaller changes in operations itself. Every little thing in an organization is a change (if not the organization ceases to exist or ends up existing under another umbrella), but they do not all have to be labeled as initiatives, programs or even projects. Layering from year to year helps with a smooth organizational change process.
Peeled Change
Is change that is guided separate from day to day operations. This means resources tend to be heavily external. Which is smart since peeling necessarily means taking away. That taking away can be a positive for internal resources if it is meant to train and develop. Focusing on the process of change can be a powerful addition to a young leaders arsenal and by extension the organization. Peeled change has little that gets in it way, but it can get in the way, because any change will at some point need to become operational.
Internal resources are not typically employed full time to large change initiatives- even when they are peeled. This creates a push and pull for resource time usually won by operations over change. If the separation and reintegration of those resources is managed by the change process though this can be a great way to keep the change management crisp and efficient.
Too many peels on the ground gets a little slippery though…
As a senior leader it is important to look at your strategic initiatives, programs and projects with an eye toward their connection to day to day operations and culture. The tighter the hold, or put another way, the less transformational, the more layering makes sense. The questions to ask are-
How drastic is this change?
How much do we want the work we do around managing this change to integrate into our fabric?
At what point and in what way do we insert the change (knowing there will be disruption to operations)?
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change management, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
When it exists is like a sponge. It pulls in until it fills to capacity.
This is something to consider, leverage and acknowledge for change management. It is not necessarily something to be fed and nurtured.
What is Loyalty in the context of change management?
Loyalty to the cause
This is a connection to the core purpose of the change that creates interest, motivation and action. A technologist may quickly be on board for an IT implementation (or not of course). Someone sitting in HR may jump right on board for a human capital initiative. A senior executive may pencil in more and more free space on their calendar for dialogue and exchange for a program that touches their function.
Loyalty to the company
This is the version we think of when we see the word loyalty tied to work or workplace. It might infer staying power in terms of retention, it might mean atmosphere and culture, it might mean the tenacity with which people stick to goals/strategy/plans. It might even be the level of evangelism from participants extending outside internal operations-social marketing.
Ongoing connection
Loyalty that is truly strong is ongoing. Loyalty has a distinct time connection and a measure of strength over that time frame. Ideally it is increasing strength-measured differently for each individual and/or stakeholder.
Which brings me to the sponge.
Loyalty has both a pull and a maximum limit. The expectation of loyalty in change management often creates that maximum limit quickly. This is the common pattern of project/change management- shove something in, assume loyalty and get-…wait for it…Resistance.
Thankfully loyalty has a rosy side too. The pull. The more things (our things being change) make sense and connect in some way the smoother and more powerful the pull. Loyalty tends to spread easily once the pull begins. Charismatic leaders can help with the pull- someone has to communicate the “make sense”. The pull tends to produce evangelists who can increase the speed and, at times, the capacity of the pull.
When it is strong loyalty should be acknowledged within the change process. The acknowledgement can be kudos in communications, illustrations of commitment, examples of time saved through dedication and collaboration, etc. This is the right approach for feeding/nurturing/leveraging loyalty.
What does not always makes sense is rewarding loyalty.
Think of the expectations airline miles have created. Think of the backlash about blackout periods. Rewarded loyalty has a scale of expectations that increases quickly which decreases loyalty if not continuously fed.
Loyalty’s dark side is group think, retention of the lowest common denominator and potentially reduced innovation. In terms of change management the dark side is models and approaches that make incorrect assumptions or are based on internal best practices. The way we do it, a form of cultural loyalty, may not always be the most efficient or effective (effective adding a human capital component).
Keeping all this in mind, change management can build loyalty by rewarding skill and showing how that skill connects to end states and the health of the change entity. If compensation structures do the same bonuses can be added that tie to change participation.
Kudos always work. They work because they are after the fact and specific. Incentives are the opposite, before and general. They do not work so well because of the expectations they create.
When it comes to loyalty, specifically reward rather than generally encourage.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
Because it creates a chance for congregation, for display of achievement, for shining a light on talent, for the noise of a communal group, for laughter, for conversation and for acknowledgement. A parade is a good analogy for understanding Change Management.
We have a Fourth of July parade here in Danville that attracts 40,000 people (almost the same as our population). It is a typical local parade. Lawn chairs are lined up the night before 2 and 3 deep for over a mile. Proof positive that everyone loves a parade.
Change benefits (and moves along smoother and faster) when tradition and people are recognized in the process of changing. A parade happens at the same time each year. Some participants are there for years at a stretch. Some go in and out. Some show up just once. In long standing parades there is an order to the procession. But who’s to say there is not a better sequence?
There will be whispered comments about this year versus last year, the parade not being the same as it used to etc. This is the continual conversation that goes on with the tradition/change interaction.
Within the parade are displays of achievement, participation and accomplishments. An annual meeting can do the same with the last years change. When called out as change and included in a change entities process the displays can become more of a cultural acknowledgment and less of a display of feathers.
Celebration is important in the change process. Tying that celebration into the fabric of an organizations culture can help with transitions from yesterdays tradition to tomorrows change.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, Communication, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
 Just the fact the there is a role for CM on any given initiative, program or project is a plus. It sends a signal to participants that the transition from one thing to another is complicated and difficult enough to warrant sheparding by a person rather than just through communication or project management.
As a Conduit
A CM resource external, internal or a designated leader will consider it their responsibility to make connections that are obvious, but for some reason are not happening. Leader to stakeholder and vice-versa, function to function, peer to peer across functions, internal to external resources to name a few.
As a Leadership Guide
This an extension of the conduit plus. It is difficult in organizations to get valuable feedback as a leader and to give the same as an employee/stakeholder. The CM often falls into the role of coach/mentor/advisor between the leading and the hands on work.
As a Communication Lever
In the same third party sense the communication for a change process can weave in operational interaction in a safer and more approachable manner than mandates and barked orders.
As an Organizational Assessment avenue
The process of gathering information for the end state descriptions reveals a wealth of data about the organization. Companies rarely have an avenue for objectively evaluating their people, structure and process. CM (with a good practitioner) shines a light in all three areas.
As an Operational Builder
If Change Management is an entity within the organization all of the above combined with the regular change management activities and expectations can address efficiency, collaboration, cross functional accountability and overall connection between strategy and implementation.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CCM, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Value, vision to work
In keeping with my practical, as efficient as possible approach, I have to ask Why? Why the push lately for metrics, ROI and just plain justification? Maybe we are on the long tail of the same pattern from HR, OD, Human Capital (did I miss any?)…Somehow there is a group think around the need for metrics for the “people side”.
You would think that is coming from the business focused metrics guided senior executives. Only one snag- from one career and one CM practitioner- in my 13 years working with over 70 firms I have never had a senior leader ask for metrics. And I, wisely I think, do not suggest them.
The last thing I want is for the insufficient CM budget to be stripped further by metrics design and gathering. Although if you are a client reading this a full budget with the opportunity to design the metrics would be nice…
Let’s formulate the front end.
There are two types of CM to consider. One is the kind that gets inserted or overlaid on the project process, the other my horizontal/circular view of change. For mine ongoing operational measures can often be used since large scale transformational change must be weaved into the organizations overall process. For the other the only true measures would be speed to get change accomplished and effectiveness against inevitable slowdown.
Both have problems. It is not fair to use operational metrics when you are mixing in more work and effort. The “more” slows things down while the CM helps get to the new state, but they likely balance out. Speed only works if you have an equal initiative to measure against. Same with facilitating slowdown.
CM at its core is a discipline that helps corral and funnel work and effort toward the accomplishment of a business goal. A good measurement of that would show that less time was spent on understanding, learning, collaborating, dialoguing and planning than would have happened without CM. I personally would value subjective measures taken from stakeholders (senior leaders being part of that category). Surveys and questionnaires can turn those responses into measurements. The ask why approach must be critically evaluated since those tools are favorites of consultants looking to expand their revenue base (and are, apparently, crucial for that group looking to legitimize).
Now my commentary.
If assumptions are wrong, then approaches are tainted, which makes results less than optimal, which begs the question, Why measure a substandard delivery? Previous posts of mine have pushed the idea of separating CM from typical performance measures. This metric group think is a perfect example of the desire to monitor and control, coincidentally one of the foremost roadblocks for change.
This is also another example of pushing CM deeper into the organization since it is analysts that will typically do the work of actual measurement. This is a connection and use of time that is essential to successful CM. The work of connecting to and gathering metrics would (I avoided using will although human nature as it is that is the right word) take away valuable connection time with stakeholders. So it becomes a time issue as well as a money issue-two strikes. And, of course, that time now potentially effects the actual metrics and makes CM look less successful- nice loop.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, change awareness, change failure, engagement, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, resistance to change, stakeholders, Value, vision to work
Thanks to the facts that CM is placed to late and too low, that stakeholders get it and organizations untouched by botched change are rare, practitioners and their leader clients are forced to outright say or infer that, “this time will be different”. And so we have a task built in to the very beginnings of the change process to gather the historical record of Leadership and/or Change Management’s success and failure.
Here is how to get close to supporting that promise-
- Find out why previous efforts were bad or good
- Wind back the clock on this initiative (see fact one above)
- Craft and deliver an introductory communication that clearly lays out upcoming interaction
- Connect with the leader(s) responsible for bullet one
- Mentor and model from day one
You are trying as the CM practitioner and/or the owner of the change to acknowledge the previous attempts, grab a dose of humility for second chances, show your expertise and command of the process and illustrate that change, changes, as you go along.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change failure, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
|
|
