|
|
It has been an interesting couple of years for change management- quite the contrast to 8 – 10 years ago. Consulting, to some extent, is dead, replaced by the strange wave that followed the Microsoft case. (Treat people like employees and you have to give them benefits and consideration for effort- so now we have contracting scenarios that are an arms length worst case scenario, low rates and no benefits and still treated like an employee).
Things go in cycles (this one a little too long for just one career). What will happen is demand will pick up, corporate money will free up and suddenly consulting will return, along with respectable rates (if the consultants are smart enough to raise their rates together).
What is ironic is that all that money locked up in corporate accounts when freed up will land in the worst environment for cost savings. If it had been spent in the last couple of years to move change and shore up structure a lot of companies would be ready (and already have those consultants in place with some loyalty). This is not hindsight it is lack of foresight and strategic planning.
Those who underpaid (I could give you the list of firms in the Bay Area considered chintzy and last resorts for clients….) will find that no one is interested in working with them even if the rates go up. Those firms already have revolving doors (I was contacted 13 times for the same role over a two year period and I know for a fact they went through at least three consultants).
The more firms are stripped of their talent through cost savings the more valuable senior consultants will become.
I see corrections in the future. If you are a senior leader I would say now is the time to get a head start- grab a senior consultant while you can- but do not think about it too long, that could get expensive.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision
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
I got contacted by a third party today and their first question was, “do you have experience with change strategy?”.
Wow the Curse of Experience has broken!
Since 2008 experience with high and broad change has not played well to clients.There has been so much tightening and so much farming out through third parties that everything has been crunched down to tactics. Tactical change without strategy is not pretty- a lot of the change of the last three years has followed that pattern.
The curse of experience is worth thinking about because it will return. You are cursed, at times, if you are experienced because you will see beyond the parameters of the current change (and role if this is contracting). That is not comfortable for a client who has clear edges to their control.
You can be a curse as a consultant if you are all ideas and no urgency.
You are cursed in crunch environments if you feel, as you should if you are experienced, that the client owns the change you are just helping drive. Clients often, especially mid level implementers, need externals to do a lot of the work. Hence the movement toward third parties and contracting (the client feels in those situations they can tell the contracted person what to do, like an employee).
Strategy dissipates when there is no growth. Consultants and clients are forced into tactical approaches to change in non growth environments. Experience is too expensive.
And there is the spell that has been cast that makes buyers think that tactics are a lot of work and strategy is not. One is with the hands and one with the head. Both take effort.
But here is the benefit we all get from our three year experience curse- those senior consultants are now well versed in tactics. Strategy will always convert to tactics (tactics can exist without strategy… for awhile). So now we have senior, experienced consultants with three years of intense tactics under their belts.
Senior leaders, now might be the time to ask strategic questions and then ask for the translation to tactics. It is worth testing each candidate for a senior role. The curse may have mesmerized them.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, External Consultant, strategy, tactics
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
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
- Be very clear before you start the change journey of the responsibilities of leadership- you will likely have an owner and an implementer. Partner together and pass that type of relationship down the chain. Change fails when no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
- If you are the leader be careful of the you and them perspective- stakeholders see right through a leader who is not personally connected to the change.
- Value expertise- use it, call it out and connect the relationship of talent to successful change. But don’t fake it (see point two).
- Be clear about the differences between project management and change management- PM accomplishes tasks and manages risk, CM works to connect the work of people to end states. Don’t put big picture people on the little stuff and don’t throw the big picture stuff at those managing risk.
- Double your time and dollar estimates- I mean that figuratively (although if you want to take it literally and act on that you might have some pretty successful change- by all measures). Don’t fall prey to any hucksters out there who promises to speed your time to change. It might work for the first round, but the mess will be ugly the second time.
- Change can be, and is when it is thought out and makes sense, positive- be careful of negative, resistance fighting, risk managing approaches to change. There may be times when you have to put the hammer down… that’s different.
- Enjoy the journey- you are, after all, asking that of others.
Leadership, perspective, expertise, CM and PM partnership, time, money, positive and negative must all be looked at before change can begin. Address these seven pointers and you will have a good start toward a successful change effort.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change excercise, change management strategy, Executive, organizational change, PMO, vision to work
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
What exactly do we see when we look in the mirror? If someone stood next to us would they see the same thing?
Senior leader, what if you stood next to a stakeholder and looked in the mirror? Same reflection?
What if it is the change standing in front of the mirror? How many different reflections would that be?
You contract with a senior consultant for a different interpretation of the reflections that come your way. You build that relationship to trusted advisor to help adjust your interpretation of your reflection.
A good consultant will know what too say, which reflection differences to address and when.
A good change management consultant placed high with the owner knows which reflections to encourage for you and for the change in general. They sometimes and often conflict. You work with the external so you will address that conflict. Acknowledging and addressing conflict is a core competency for leadership and one difficult to manage alone.
That consultant will be able to see things broad and into the future that for you, with your narrow field of vision, will not appear in that mirror. They have likely gone through many interpretations of different reflections and honed their skill in explaining and addressing disparity. Odds are also pretty good they have done that for themselves (and even have their own trusted advisor).
The greatest disparity I see for this metaphor is the stakeholder reflection vs. the leaders image, both for the leader and for the change. Leaders have high expectations and often get away with pushing their own reflection. One of the biggest roadblocks to change is this disconnect between what employees see (and feel) and what the senior leaders version is. Humility is important here. Contracting with an external is your first humble move. It will pay off when everyone looks back in the mirror later.
What you see in the mirror and the image others receive is not likely the same. An external consultant can help line them up so leaders and stakeholders can work together.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management consultant, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders
This was a search that landed on the HorizontalChange blog.
I have spent three days thinking about it.
THE most important? Tough.
Here are some things that are in the running:
- Highest executive ownership
- External guidance
- Makes sense
- Cash
- Competency
Highest executive ownership
When I ask stakeholders what they think is the most important thing for their change, to a person, they respond with something that has to do with the connection of the top level leader to the change and the work it involves. I call this person the owner (credit to Alan Weiss- his version being the executive a consultant should contract with). The owner holds the money, the influence and the highest level visibility (yes, not necessarily the most power or the most influence).
Stakeholders expect this person to be involved, to be present, to be available and to add work effort (not just management) to the initiative. When they see the buck passed they dial back their energy. When the leader is non existent for this change they push back. When this has been a pattern for a long time (which would describe just about every organization) they expect to see a marked improvement this time around.
My ultimate consultant fantasy is to work with a leader who gets this and is willing to be consulted on approaches to leverage their gift of connection.
External guidance
Change is about tweaking, removing, replacing or redoing status quo (“the state in which” as opposed to the end state). The change appears necessary because the current state is not working in some way. It takes a very self aware person to rejigger their own status quo, let alone replace it completely. Multiply that by the number of stakeholders you have and then increase it geometrically for all of the combinations of status quo that have evolved and you have a scenario that is impossible to change on your own.
External guidance, the right kind that consults for your business and its people, is crucial for big change.
Among other things an external consultant can roam your organization to make connections and create collaboration that internals shy away from. An external can reveal all of those status quo scenarios so they can be discussed in the open. A change management consultant can anticipate the things that slow change, cost money and increase risk. An external is disconnected enough to move from long term to short term thinking in an instant. A senior version of our fertilizing outside influence can also address strategy and tactics back and forth.
Makes sense
What is the point of change if it does not make sense? And yet many, many changes do not. Sometimes they do not for just a few individuals; sometimes for groups; sometimes for the organization (see previous paragraph to at least have these called out). When change does not make sense at a lower level than corporate strategy (and assuming that strategy is defensible) it needs to be explained.
Taketh in one area and you may be able to give in another. There are many things in life that do not make much sense, but life in general is pretty cool; there are many things about change that do not make sense, but growth and improvement does.
Cash
This one will not make the cut because change is chronically under budgeted. If the money could be made available to do it right then cash would quickly rise to the “most important aspect” status.
Cash in general is pretty important. Just as important is how it is used. The balance of budget for now and budget for bigger things never seems to line up when it comes to change- likely because not a whole lot of change can take place within the yearly budget cycle of organizations (let alone some quarterly measures).
So we will say the right amount of cash spent wisely is important.
Competency
You can have ownership, some great external consulting, change that makes sense and your choice of currency to pay for the effort and then find you are way short of talent. Usually you are short of skill (easy to outsource- I always mean independent consultants when I use that word, not second language phone banks), but often you are (also) short of competencies (mid level leadership group of competencies being the most obvious).
With all the slicing and dicing of people and structure that has gone on in the last 3+ years this is VERY common. But of all of our categories this is the easiest one to overcome (see previous category- Cash).
Any of these areas could be considered “the most important aspect”. Other things like a strong PMO, good internal change approaches (example: a corporate change management entity), a clean history of previous changes or positive energy could all be added to the list.
I think the most important aspect of Change Management is the thread that sews this all together. It is the thread that strategizes; that plans; that questions; that collaborates; that looks within; that asks for perspective from outside; that understands context; that explains and that enjoys using talent for the work it produces and the accomplishment that results.
That red (or yellow or blue if you want subtlety) fiery thread that connects change, time and people- that is the most important aspect.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management strategy, Context, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
 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
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
