|
|
“it’s very easy to get addicted to the change pattern by not getting the change right in the first place, not making the tough calls or bold decisions up-front, maybe going for something half-way, and then allowing things to slip back.” BP’s Fiona MacLeod (maybe not timely to quote BP, but every organization has a silver lining within) http://tinyurl.com/mewr9p
Change and addiction strung together seems a contradiction to me. It insinuates change is a bad thing. I suppose serial change makes little sense if it is not rooted in reality and sustainability. There, I admitted it might be possible (the first step in conquering addiction- ha).
Take a look at the above link. It is a great example of a realistic change perspective, illustrates a little nitty gritty of the engagement Fiona sponsored, has nothing negative (but talks about how to address potential negatives) was human and business oriented at the same time and, we assume, ended at the end state with sustainability. RARE (note the capital letters).
We will let the link, the project and the content stand on its own and address the “addiction” part.
Here are the ways I see this manifested-
External Consulting Firms
Here you find the most likely culprits. They must be addicted to “change” because that is how they make their money. The more change, the more confusion, the more need for them, the more revenue. My dig here would be the more they are part of the picture the more the whole cycle perpetuates itself. The bigger the firm the more perpetual the endless (and stationary) change.
But aren’t we shooting our own foot here?
Ah, I said firms.
Independent consultants with few or no employees, while probably being addicted to change in their own way, are not in the habit of useless change perpetuation. Maybe they are weekend change fanatics- to extend our metaphor. Their revenue comes from value and perhaps the small teams that they create (and work with and mentor). Their future revenue comes from referrals, testimonials and success.
They can help ease you out of the addiction into a reasonable, moderate level of change intake.
Internal Grass Roots Change
Culprit number two. This tends to sprout and spread because the internal change practitioners (or worse someone who is newly pretending to be one) want their approach, their method and them to win over the organization. With our current dead career ladders this is becoming all too common (to the tune of 27 different approaches at one Fortune 50 firm I can think of).
The second version of this is a partnership of our first category and our second (I can hear the fingernails on the chalkboard now). An outside firm (not always the big ones in this case, more often the (one)s who heavily market their own specific approach) feeds the internal power grabber some content sure to start the addiction and away they go together on an evangelical crusade to convert the entire organization.
Executives with Grand Vision(s)
I am the last one to take the grand visions away from the executives, but there is a translation to reality for some. If they do not have a right hand person, or a trusted external advisor/consultant to make the translation the visions are just fancy dreams. When it becomes serial in an organization is either one executive with many visions (and eager followers) or many executives all over the organization each with their own version of the dream.
Staffing Firms
My pet peeve. They are in the business of getting bodies on the ground (not unlike the huge consulting organizations). Since competition (thankfully) is becoming brutal for them the chance of being picked for the next engagement is slim. So the “bodies” mentality is to get the first win as big as possible and do whatever you can to keep the pattern going. Notice I mentioned nothing about the work or the results.
It is just too easy to ask them to go find people (like using a real estate agent for free for all the house hunting- in fact compare the two…). They convince you as they are pouring the Kool Aid that they find the best long before any other method.
Scapegoating
Let’s face it everyone thinks change “fails 70% of the time” (the dumbest stat I think I have ever seen and certainly not the least bit helpful to anyone). So just in case failure is a possibility why not wrap the whole thing up as a change imitative, then you will have built in blame- not your own.
This has gotten extreme enough that regular operational projects, the kind that happen all the time, are labeled as change initiatives. Hey if it works for the one of tweaks why not use the scapegoat for Everything!
Change is here to stay as they say. And it is necessary to stay ahead and to improve. It is the basis of growing and adapting business. But like wine on the weekend it is best taken at an enjoyable manageable level.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, change management, vision
Your stakeholders are most likely frozen with eyes wide open thanks to the last couple of turbulent and less than promising years.
Think of the deer transfixed by the headlights. They are not exactly scared; they do not seem to be curious; they are spell bound. Honk the horn and they do not move. Blink the lights, the same. Turn off the lights and they stand there wondering what to do, with their attention fixated as though by a spell (one of the definitions of transfixed- here are some others http://tinyurl.com/2cn5cmq).
As a C level leader what to do?
- Acknowledge
- Sum up your organizations recent past
- Leverage the good
- Own up to the bad
- Describe the future
- Create and manage a transition period
Acknowledge
Whether or not any given individual found themselves in the glaring lights does not matter. We have all seen, heard or been touched by the nasty spell of economic downturn. That must be acknowledged. Since you, as a leader, are part of the herd too, some of your own personal examples might help. Acknowledgement does not mean a continuation of negative and pessimistic perspectives. You must ease yourself out of the headlights and look ahead.
The Past
As in the last, let’s say, two years.
Odds are you tightened the purse strings, your are lean, maybe you even had some time for retrospection and introspection on an organizational level. If you were smart you took advantage of the slowdown. Put that all together in a message and sum it up in a tidy package as if you and the organization have already moved past that spot into a positive and more profitable future.
The Good
Is most likely represented in cold numbers to show smart consolidation. Tread lightly here since most stakeholders will not see the good in anything from the recent past (unless they owned it, then they will appreciate the connection). The best way to transition from difficult situations is to look at how the time was managed. If individually or collectively as an organization you did what you could then there will be good. If you are the deer or you have let the herd stand in the road for a long time…
Own up
There are plenty of times when we do what we can and what we think is right, practical and responsible only to find in hindsight we were on the wrong track. Use that hindsight to your advantage to illustrate not what could have been but why your process got you to where you are. Doing this well will give you a foundation for process and structure improvements to tag onto initiatives tomorrow.
New End States
Your first instinct in transitioning out of yesterday and into tomorrow is probably to illustrate a clear vision. Be careful here. You are likely to articulate a vision you wish for. In between is the one you want. Better to dig into the one you need. By you I mean literally you, but also the organization and its individuals. Think and communicate in terms of practical end states. Heavily load your change management front end to come up with clear, shorter length attainable end states that have easy participation points.
Transition
The headlights were particularly glaring for the deer in your herd this time around. The car has stopped; the herd is safe. Guide them off the road slowly and smoothly. Because of the participation and engagement needed with front end change management transition is built in. The addition of inordinately positive external resources (if they also have a full quiver of empathy) can help you to time the transition period. Do not with run blindly across the road at this point. The last thing you need is for fear to turn to panic.
Every difficult situation is a leverage point for the future. The deer in the headlights is not scared, just mildly stunned. Take advantage of the fact that in the headlights, for a brief moment all is calm, centered and in the moment. The perfect foundation for positive change.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change management consultant, Change Strategy, executive communications, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, vision, vision to work
Shhh. Don’t let your competition in on this- Organizational Development (OD) can be done at the same time as Change Management. Top Secret tip number two- it can be one in the same person (or small team). If you are a smart executive you will work with consultants who see this as part of their role (if you know my writings this is where the hint comes in- we are not talking Big 3 here [it is still 3 isn’t it?]).
Executive Development
No matter the intensity of the change role for an external consultant there are always stray hours in between that can be used to coach and guide executive development. On one of my recent engagements I let Director and Senior Director leaders know I was available for my hour and a quarter drive in the morning and evening to the client site. On a long engagement (in this case 9 months) there is a lot of that time. Enough so that I was able to develop simple coaching plans around the leaders role in change and guide them through skill and competency development. I personally consider this a stealth value add for my own clients.
Training
Design is a very important part of communicating change. With a little extra effort (and the ability, competencies and knowledge to teach) the CM can build skills for Manager level team leads around the design, organization and dissemination of information. The same goes for project management. There are countless one on one sessions in every large change between the external CM and internal stakeholders and line level leaders. Well thought out (by you the client and the external) these interchanges can have components of skill development- the skills which you, of course, uncovered in your initial data gathering and development of the end state description.
Process
A good trusted advisor high level CM can be your executive eyes and ears (as well as right hand) to the organization. Unless the current initiative is specifically addressing process you may not want to, under cover, change it. You can however cull helpful tidbits from the change exchange that happens quickly and through less layers with your external agent. Given the chance to be an “undisclosed source” most stakeholders will readily give ideas, perspective and input that no amount of organizational suggestion boxes will ever uncover.
Structure
Repeat above surveillance for structure. Process is how tasks play out and how people interact. Structure is the support, tools and reporting. The two together always have a treasure trove of secrets that can be gleaned.
Your own development and introspection
This one is the trickiest and usually requires a 007 level external. They are your trusted advisor. Trust can come from transparency and honesty. What better way to develop that than to trade suggestions back and forth for improvement and enhancement. You have a chance to be each others consultant. Unlike the real spy game you should both stay on the same side (no double agents in this relationship).
As an executive do not miss the chance to build organizational development into your change process and interactions. The current environment looks to be external resource heavy for quite some time. Make sure the transition to a better balance of internal and external is part of your change strategy.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
When consultants are “on the beach” (the inside term for not on client engagements) they react completely different from employees who feel close to losing their job. They dig in, retrench and create. Most consultants are itching to have a chance to build collateral, increase their thought leadership and learn. The economic crises has proved fertile ground for just that.
That collateral for you as an executive is the foundation for effective, efficient delivery of business objectives.
Consultants are by nature restless, enjoy a challenge and thrive in the most difficult of situations. Their sweet spot is to have the tools and collateral, the time to think and just the right environment of confusion (and possibly fear). They like to accomplish things that others are too slow, too scared or not qualified to tackle. When they see a clear path with all those parameters they get things done fast.
Every one of those parameters is now lined up. Consultants have had plenty of time to create, think and learn. Now they are hungry for the chance to apply. For you that means a quick start from the backward slide of the last year or so.
Before you begin dreaming of business objectives and end states finding clear, quick paths to success look closer at what the use of those resources means to your organization and your culture. Your employees are likely fearful. They now worry about their jobs and their roles (and don’t expect that to go away for a long time). An energetic consultant with little baggage and a clear focus on goals is a serious threat. The more the numbers tilt in the direction of external resources (some firms were close to 50% even before the economy tanked) the more threat there is to the culture of the organization itself. And while unfounded (IMHO) those employees may think that the externals could actually replace them.
Your warning is
that too much reliance on external resources can weaken the fabric of your organizational culture. To rely on those resources when your culture has already weathered a storm (without the camaraderie of conquering adversity) can potentially effect those initiatives that happen after the first wave of success.
Why not strive for speed and success while at the same time transitioning your employees from fear to action. Pick a consultant (or small firm- you will not get this from the big firms) who understands what needs to be mended, wants to transfer that built up collateral and knowledge and is looking for challenge rather than maximum possible revenue (hint that would be the big firm- in fact just about any with employees). You will pull your employees into the new reality, accomplish and prepare all at the same time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, Value
Companies have hoarded cash. They are lean and trim. The foot is on the throttle; the hand at the gearshift. Fear is about to switch to anticipation. Once the accelerator is pushed and the up shifting begins there will be BIG change.
Are you an executive in the drivers seat?
That little space there between the twitching fingers and the gearshift is the most appropriate place to insert high level change management. That space, from the stirrings I have seen in the last couple of months, is now.
What do you need to consider and act on to jump start the change process?
Readiness
Not my favorite term as you know if you have read previous posts. This time it fits. Because this time you will want to gauge the overall feeling of your culture. Are they ready for tires burning? Or have they been so ground down and made to be scared from the last year or so that you have some executive communicating to do? You want to look at readiness in general not for any specific initiative. And by readiness I mean the capacity to strap in for the ride. If it is not there then some core parts of the change process need to be done well and communicated to the individual level.
Strategy
If it was strong and well communicated throughout the economic turmoil then Kudos. Odds are it was a an exercise in trimming, reducing, stopping and stalling. Not a good foundation for the change process. And not a foundation for trust with new strategy to move forward. Make sure the redo makes sense, communicate and re-communicate with individual stakeholders in mind. This is the spot to build trust, calm the culture and transition from fear to anticipation.
End States
Leverage your strategy into clear, attainable, but innovative end states. Don’t apologize for the trimming, but don’t ignore it either. If the reason you have the cash stockpiles to change is your cost cutting strategy then let the change come from that. And make sure your organization knows you are moving forward because of the previous strategy.
Development
Who did you lose? Who did you keep? How much time and money do you need to now invest to build back competency and capability? You can use the change from first gear on to help with the development (a core ingredient to our approach at Vision to Work- change and develop at the same time).
Resources
Consulting will grow next year. Transitioning from fear to anticipation and action will require intense energy and motivation to get work done. That will come much faster from hungry consultants. Just make sure as the leader with the wallet you pick firms that enjoy and feel ethically that they should be teaching and developing your people for the eventual exit of the consultant (hint small firms to independent- NOT big firms).
Those consulting firms, or individuals who build a team, should be assessing your competency and leadership gaps, temporarily filling them in and guiding you to replacement (or using their peer network to actually find them for you).
You can’t gun the engine just yet. You must turn fear into action. In this environment you have change within change- call it recovery to change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, stakeholders, strategy, vision to work
Seems to so clearly make sense. Yet is confusing and sometimes hard to explain, because it means many things (to many people and perspectives). So to borrow from Dictionary.com http://tinyurl.com/2ep67zz
1. to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship: She managed to see the governor. How does she manage it on such a small income?
This would be the overcoming status quo, addressing internal politics inclusion and non-inclusion choices, this would be moving things and people forward where others have failed, this is the big picture of overcoming obstacles. On a small scale it is all the small meetings with “the governor” (to borrow from the definition) that manage change in little increments.
2. to take charge or care of: to manage my investments.
This is the leadership factor. With CM it comes out of educating, building credibility, highlighting change as a growth factor, communicating with transparency, interacting with empathy and shining a light on both business goals and individuals. Negotiating obstacles and seeing ahead are the “take care of” parts.
3. to dominate or influence (a person) by tact, flattery, or artifice: He manages the child with exemplary skill.
Change agents are typically subtle in their steering of momentum and motivation (if they are good) and that is influential. Disregarding history and the effect of performance systems is the dominate part. Tact and flattery are the yin and yang of CM.
4. to handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use: She managed the boat efficiently.
This is the project management piece. Having a true PM as a partner who resides in the same spot in the organization (or at least has equal influence) gives the handling, the directing, the controlling (in a good way to make to do lists easier on stakeholders) of actions. And in the case of technology transformations the use.
5. to wield (a weapon, tool, etc.).
There are times when a poke and a prod, and the more drastic firing of the weapon, is the solution to managing change. Wielding tools with the above tact and flattery is the long term change solution.
6. to handle or train (a horse).
Certainly there are individuals and teams… and functions and executives and boards and… who need to be handled- a little like a green broke horse. Enter training. And perhaps quiet whispers and gentle prods.
7. Archaic . to use sparingly or with judgment, as health or money;
This is the view of the executive who thinks people should just do their job. A view that causes sparing use of money, time and IMHO judgment. Well look at that- it is an archaic definition. 
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, Garrett Gitchell, organizational change, vision to work
I have seen and heard lately the term “over qualified”. In my own context I take it as a compliment, albeit a strange one. In forums it sounds as if this is a nasty symptom of the last tough 2 years.
Over an over I have turned this term to make sense of it. On a run this morning I got the “aha”. It has nothing to do with qualifications really, it has to do with potential for influence. Someone brought in for one of the new pseudo-consulting roles (an actual role is created that looks much like an employee position with the same type of requirements and the client also expects genuine consulting at the same time- like two people wearing the same hat) can quickly become a threat to the very person who brought them in.
I get it, especially in this cutthroat environment where it appears careers will remain at a stand still for years. Everyone is fighting for the next or at least a different spot.
Here is why it makes no sense-
-
Good consultants are always working themselves out of the role
-
They do not want your job (if they are overqualified presumably they could be in your spot if they chose to)
-
They are there to help you- the leverage they might have is to your advantage (assuming you shoot for end states in the case of CM consultants)
-
You and those on your team are probably deliverable based whereas a qualified consultant is solution based- err on the side of consulting with externals and let them use deliverables for leverage
-
Clients are price sensitive, consultants (good ones) refuse to compete on price- when a consultant is willing to meet in the middle you get value and price (now thanks to s sluggish business environment)
Senior executives tend to understand all these internal to external role to consultant connections. And therein is, perhaps, a lesson. Did they figure this out and use it to climb to their positions? While the fearful resisted?
Technorati Tags: change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, Value
A change practitioner in a discussion forum used the statement, “…and then I loop in leaders as necessary”. My hair stood on end and I got a chill a little like the fingers-on-a-chalkboard reaction. “Looped in change” is an uphill battle on many fronts.
Timeliness
Well strategized change, with heavy front end work, determines the extent to which leaders need to be involved (because they are stakeholders like everyone else). Looping in will always be too late. Too late hurts the change process because it appears things were not thought out, which creates lack of trust.
Change Team authority and ability
Late loops will cause stakeholders to question the ability and corresponding authority of the change team (or practitioner if a team of one). Having change entities or individuals tasked with the management of change has tremendous leverage. Taking a loop perspective erases that or, at the very least, seriously weakens it.
The Looped (snicker) Leaders Connection
Looping in leaders sounds a lot like inclusion for the sake of including. The only thing worse than catering to a weak leader is to add them late in the game. An important thing to remember for change, not everyone has to be included- acknowledged maybe, but only in relation to the end state (not vanity).
Change Management scope creep
Those loops soon spiral out of control. Those out of control spirals welcome a nasty kind of scope creep. That scope creep can make the end state description and path to it virtually disappear in a dance of internal politics.
A change practitioner (or internal leader managing change) caught in this pattern (a common one) needs to be much more assertive early on. If they were brought in late and low (also common) they need to work to back the time line up a bit to get clarity on the end state and the connections that will create. When I find myself in those situations I call a bit of a hard stop. I am not afraid to include the leaders who should have been included earlier into the hard stop discussion. Equally I do not hesitate to prod for less inclusion rather than more- at least in the decision process.
Every one can champion.
Looped leaders who take that role might find themselves included early in the next change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change failure, engagement, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management consultant, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, resistance to change, 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
|
|
