|
|
I keep hearing about transition periods for change, the need for buy-in, the difficulty of altering status quo and I think of all the times that one thing can just replace another. Wait long enough to upgrade some technology and you can start from scratch. Get irritated enough with your processes and technology within your company and bringing in all new stuff is not much of a stretch.
As a leader decide if you, or your change practitioners, are spending too much time highlighting the thing, process, structure, even people that do not fit in to the end state. If you have a new picture in mind that does not include those things why keep calling them out? It gets to be a bad habit in the change timeline.
As a practitioner, craft that end state through your interactions with the owner, leaders and stakeholders without the present as baggage. Take the time for that. You may see that this is replacement rather than transitional change.
As a stakeholder maybe stop spending so much time trying to figure out how this new thing compares to what you have. Maybe they are really two different things? Maybe making them unconnected in time would make it easier to get to your end state version?
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
~ Richard Buckminster Fuller, American visionary, designer, architect, poet, author, and inventor
Look at the titles given Fuller:
Visionary to imagine.
Designer to craft.
Architect to build.
Poet to message.
Author to record.
Inventor to create.
Good skill set for replacement change!
Technorati Tags: change excercise, Executive, leader, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision, vision to work
I have seen this before, but on a recent engagement it was painfully obvious. Big change has an underlying assumption of mini-ownership of process, tasks and work effort.
Here is how the process usually plays out:
- A “sponsor” is picked either before the business case is built or after (usually from the initial team in that case).
- The sponsor is expected to reach out into functions for leadership.
- Those leaders with find, pick, nominate or coerce an initial team of “champions”.
- Those champions will be the in-person deliverers of work, task and message
- Finally the end stakeholders (“line” in some cases) will own the change and make it happen.
I have inserted a few quotation marks which means there are problems…
Sponsor ownership
The sponsor is not the owner. To have them own the change is a problem. They will not have the same level of respect as the true owner (the person responsible for the budget of the change- yes it is always one person). While likely still a high level senior leader they will not have the breadth of reach that the owner does (nor the level of influence). That can make big change tough. Big change does not work well when permission must be granted, over and over again. If you have to ask permission you do not own.
The sponsor must have a mini level of ownership, compared to the owner. Without the owner reinforcing that change will run into problems, up to and including failure.
Passing everything quickly to a sponsor by virtue of your status quo approach, passing the buck or just naiveté is a mini-ownership problem first step.
Mid level leadership
Which typically gets repeated with a pass to mid level leadership (usually Directors within functions). Mid level leadership most definitely owns the translation of the idea into work. They own an important messaging component. But if they are receiving a second pass of the baton (with no lead given from the first runner) they are starting off with an ownership/leadership disadvantage.
In my experience some of these leaders ought to be given MORE ownership because they get it, their stakeholders know and see that and things will happen if they do not have to ask permission (or do things different than the previous baton passers). There are as many leaders, in my experience, at this level, that should not be given any more ownership than is needed to make a connection to their stakeholders.
Best quote from one of these people in my career, “Having been around here for 30 years I ought to know how things are done.” Ha. And having been around here for 30 days (or maybe 30 minutes) I can tell you how things SHOULD not be done anymore…
Champions
These are the people itching to further their career. Give them anything to own and they will take it. Whether or not the first person to coin this term did this on purpose I’m not sure, but it would have been a good move if you thought change was about urgency and energy. The people who get the title champion have both. And they can often create both in others.
Or not.
You can’t just say someone is a champion of anything. Think sports. The equivalent corporate- champion-crowning is the 5 year old soccer team where EVERYONE gets a trophy, because they are ALL champions.
If you have a scenario where the owner gets it and is present, mid level leaders can have the end state make sense from their functional perspective (and that translates well into participation in a bigger picture effort) then champions are just awesome to have- especially the ones who can own and lead to pull in the last level of stakeholder.
End stakeholders
Who are ultimately the most important for change. They are the ones who will be doing something different- likely over and over and over (like typing). They must be able to own the connection of work to end state. What they do must be significant in some way. And the rewards for participation, in addition to the knowledge of connection, must be real.
There is a lot of buzz about “ownership of change” this year. It gets quotes because stakeholder ownership is a very contrived term. There are just too many times when the level of ownership on the line, at the and, where the hands on work happens, cannot be much. Looking at the organization from that vantage point I can see how hard it would be to feel ownership to anything. Roll out change as a passage of mini-ownership through multiple layers and you will likely have push back at the end.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management strategy, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
A while back I did a tongue in cheek look at models.
Thanks to all the certification machines out there and the unemployment rate there is a flood of new, inexperienced (you can tell by the questions they ask in Forums) “change management practitioners”. It seems the first thing they want to know about are the different models to use. Big indicator that they really do not understand Change Management.
Because there are a lot of horns out there tooting as loud as possible- one that insists Change Management falls within project management (recipe for failure for anything big). I have never been one to blow my horn loud and for the sole purpose that someone listens to it (or spends money to hear it again). I shout when something does not make sense and no one seems to be saying anything (even though it is right in front of their eyes and they agree).
Well isn’t that a little like true Change Management? It is about calling out things so you can get to make sense end states. PS most of the models out there, on purpose, by design, do not do that. Most of the clients out there LOVE those kind of models because they really do not need to change much. You are not that kind of client/leader or practitioner, right?
So here (the actual model with hyperlink explanations for each piece) is the Vision to Work model:
I created it as a representation of End State Focus and Makes Sense Change. I did not, like many modelers, create a model that illustrated how change was being approached already. It amazes me how many models are created to support status quo- pretending otherwise.
Call me out marketers, but I have never touted the model specifically- the perspective yes, maybe the approach, but not the model itself. Leaders, hesitate when a consultant you are looking at whips out their model and pushes the deliverables within- they are playing to your status quo. (You do not want that, remember?)
Here is another funny thing about models. They seem to be frameworks to teach someone how to practice change management. Senior practitioners often end up creating similar paperwork (say stakeholders assessments), but it is more record keeping of the things they have found rather than a map for what to look for.
Prosci is the perfect example. A mid level practitioner could follow the model to a tee and get to the end (and I don’t mean END STATE) befuddled, confused and surprised at the failure. Anyone can sit down and draw a picture, but few of those creations end up at Christies. Anyone can go through the steps for change management; few can get to the things and people that must change for end state attainment.
The Change Management Arena has gotten a little scary this year. The emphasis on models and the strange evangelism (by, judging from their profiles, new and junior practitioners) for the companies that market the hardest is not a good sign for big transformational change. If you are a senior leader looking for a consultant be wary and ask yourself if you and your organization are REALLY capable of the change you seek. If not go with the models and the cheap rate. If so be informed and talk to those practitioners who speak with a softer voice.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, Change Design, change failure, Change Strategy, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
Rather than, “how would my mechanic do this” – the I need it by this afternoon kind of change, think how NASA might approach this. I have no idea how NASA approaches the things they do, but I am guessing it is not by quickly (urgently?) taking a step before they talk or plan. Yet that is often how organizational change works- let’s just start, the energy will bring the stragglers along with us.
If you were the leader in charge of getting to Mars how might you go about it?
- What is Mars?
- What would be the reason to be there?
- Once there, what would that look like?
- How far away is it?
- In general how would you get there?
- What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
- Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
- Now put task within the pieces.
- Now look to see that is missing and needed.
What is Mars?
This thing you are going to needs to be defined. That way your explanations can be pinned to something. You can come up with what it is physically, with what it is metaphorically and with what it means (likely an emotional definition).
What would be the reason to be there?
Why go to Mars? Is this for scientific discovery? Is it to see if Mars might be habitable? Is it for the achievement? It could be all of the above. It will be important to know why and be able to justify and explain this end state.
Once there, what would that look like?
Having explained why, what exactly might this look like, being on Mars? Would this just be a probe? A person? People? Something else? Being able to think about what it would feel like and mean to actually get to that end state, then carry on, is important. This does not have to be pie in the sky dreaming. It can be based on what the end state means in terms of advancement, in corporate terms maybe profit, distinctness from the status quo etc.
How far away is it?
Not necessarily exact distance (corporate change is not going to have a “miles [or kilometers] equivalent) but how big is this? Dealing with the small is impossible until you understand the big. Sure many will just want to get started on some details, after all this is going to take a long time we need to start WORKING! Someone has to understand the big in order to break it up into parts. In our NASA scenario part of the measurement of distance might be by generations.
Imagine working on something at NASA that you will never see actually happen, because you will not live that long.
In general how would you get there?
There is the distance, there is the scale and there is the journey. What will carry you on this journey? In our NASA case it is some kind of spaceship (likely a huge change initiative just for that part). For a company that may be an internal vs. external discussion, a method discussion, a leadership discussion or a high level competency talk (don’t get into the weeds of specifics now!- you will never get to “Mars” if you do).
What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
So, in general, what is it going to take in terms of expertise to get to that end state? Will there be skill building? Will those skills need to be stacked up to create missing competencies? Are you, and your stakeholders, going to need to see things differently in some way? Will that mean you have to do things differently? Are you prepared to do those things together when necessary?
I have to give the external plug- do you really think you can see this on you own? What do you actually see when you look in the mirror?
Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
This “Mars trip” will have pieces- a spaceship, equipment, scientific tools (likely some not invented yet), fuel, operations, overhead etc. Those pieces likely fall into a general time frame with overlaps. How much of the work can be shared so as not to be duplicated. In the Mars case do you need duplication for safety?
For corporate change this may fall into your preferred approach to change- some project management framework. That may be fine, but jump back to the last paragraph first and look in the mirror, or ask your external consultant to interpret the reflection. It may be time to come up with a different set of big pieces.
Now put task within the pieces.
Either way you will then need to break these pieces down into smaller more manageable parts. Notice I have said nothing about time or dates. Please tell me you did not announce, “We will get to Mars on blank day”. Say good bye to your date right now- let alone your end state.
Now look to see what is missing and needed.
If you made it to this point you did a good job of imaging what that end state might be, even looking past it, then working back to the present. Mars is a great example because it is hard to make a current versus future approach for this journey. A lot of change is creating, inventing and growing NOT replacing.
What are you missing? As you looked at those big pieces and thought about some smaller pieces did you see that you might not have the talent to get the work done?
Can you build your own organization to fill those gaps? After all this is a really long journey, there is time to develop while some of the doable work happens.
While you are working on that competency filling, can you overlap your efforts and strengthen your everyday operations at the same time? Generations from now someone might want to go to Pluto or a place we have not found yet. You can make both the present and the future better by thinking both bigger and smaller.
As you look at your organizational change think how NASA might approach this. Big, expansive thought translated into small detail pieces, passing through the stages and the people needed to get there. Big back to small so the small can be shown to connect to the big.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, vision, vision to work
Certainly a change appropriate word.
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
3. the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory.
4. the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable.
Dictionary.com
Acceptance and change:
- THE change must be accepted at some level
- Stakeholders must accept the change (and be accepting)
- Leaders and peers must accept each other
- All of the underlying structure must be accepted
THE change must be accepted at some level
Obviously or not much will happen. Admittedly there are some changes which have little acceptance (or acceptance an elite few- elite is a nice way of putting it) like reduction in force, some mergers, downsizing, the sale of a company etc. Acceptance is either bought, leveraged, asked for (hoped for?) or gained through make sense end states.
But someone, even if only a few has to accept to move change forward.
Stakeholders must accept the change (and be accepting)
Good change, the kind that leads to other good change must be accepted by the stakeholders. Acceptance may come right after awareness or further along the timeline as more information is communicated (and the end state possibilities become clearer).
It is much easier if the stakeholders are accepting of change, either by mentality or because of previous successes. That is one reason why I push clients to understand the significance of this change and this approach for future endeavors.
From the stakeholder perspective though there is the big nasty, “I do not accept this at all, but I have no choice (my family needs to eat…)”. I suppose you can accept that nothing is ever going to go right as you are doing the tasks you are told to do.
Leaders and peers must accept each other
For good change a contract forms, or is created on purpose, between leaders and stakeholders and between peers. They accept each other for talent and they accept differences. When you have that you can have collaboration that leads to work effort, you can have mediation that finds solutions and you can have compromise. You can also have risk that gets balanced- maybe this time we do things your way, next mine (all in one basket carries risk).
All of the underlying structure must be accepted
This is a big one that often does not happen with big change. Because so little time is spent up front getting ready- the packing and repacking for the journey- there is often not much acceptance for the approach. Or there is the previous negative, “we have no choice” acceptance.
The underlying process, historic structure, new structure and communications have a strong effect on change. When I am asked what causes change to fail my answer is always structure first.
Acceptance for change is both the stakeholder side of participation and the comfort level toward the change itself.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
This is a perfect word for change:
Definition: mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state of the world with an ideal state
Webster
“As we described the end state to the group we were all overcome with weltschmertz.”
This happens, a lot.
It is the opposite of, “no way you are going to touch my status quo with that change”.
Or something like, “looking at our actual/current state this change seems impossible”.
And my choice would be, “this is big, but it is doable and it makes sense, why do I feel this will be another round of the impossible?”.
Organizations often (and especially now as things pick up a bit in the economy) have lots of people who are ready for change. Some don’t really care what it is, just get something going here. Some would willingly jump on board for certain kinds of change. All have ideas about what should change (those ideas are often more operational than transformational, but think if you put them all together as an initiative how powerful the change would be).
I think (maybe I see through rose colored glasses) that there is more weltschmerz in organizations than change resistance. Many, many times I have met with stakeholders who are fed up with the LACK of change in their organizations. Weltschmerz weighs heavy on them.
Some pointers for “weltschmerzers”:
- Make your ideas known
- Leaders, describe end states realistically and have realistic end states
- Build flexibility into the end state
- Create multiple end states
- Stop thinking people automatically resist
- Make friends with someone in your organization that is practical and pragmatic
Use any avenue possible to clearly illustrate your ideas for change. Careful about going full bore into any organic submissions processes in your organization (weltschmerz black holes).
Leaders, spend much more time developing the end state description from both the business side and the people side. Show that you understand what this means and that a path can be laid to get there.
And show that you are willing to adapt (not concede to the naysayers but adjust the final outcome- conceding is an invitation to weltschmerz). Flexibility is essential for positive energy and participation.
The end state will be different for each person, or at least for each group. Make sure you have all of those descriptions at the ready when you start the project part of the change. Your flexibility may also give you the option of dialed back end states that still provide enough change for the champions.
People do not automatically resist. Weltschmerz is everywhere (although to be fair a resistor turned champion who falls back into their old patterns will have weltschmerz too). Don’t let yourself get caught up in models that talk about long transition processes that go from resistance to acceptance.
For individuals prone to weltschmerz because of their positively rosy view of the future find a friend who skips a little less. Go for practical and pragmatic rather than cynical and negative. I love my first breath in the morning, but have friends who can tell me, “slow down, you keep breathing that fast you are going to pass out!”.
Weltschmerz, unfortunately, is alive and well. Maybe it is time we start paying attention to those people instead of the naysayers of organizational change.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, engagement, resistance to change, stakeholders
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
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
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
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
