|
|
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
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
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
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
What would it look like if change, started from scratch, was done right?
- Find a senior change management consultant for a trusted advisor.
- Answer why.
- Connect to expertise.
- Engage.
- Divide the journey into parts.
- Manage time.
- Cycle your change process.
Trusted Advisor
If you are in the “pre-scratch” spot now is the time to bring in a senior external consultant. My pick, obviously, is an independent consultant ( you can always add other options later, the independent choice will give you both control and flexibility- not so with other options).
Why
Because most organizations dictate it the business case will begin to form quickly. That’s great, it is one side of the why equation. The tough side from a change standpoint is the why for people, especially for individuals and groups. Get that explanation and description clear early (and adapt as you gather feedback from stakeholders).
Expertise
Change requires people.
Helping them to participate, while often difficult, is not the most important thing about the people component.
Expertise is.
I coach young kids soccer; they love it, but we do not always win. I consult for change; people are led to engage, but they do not always know what they are doing.
From scratch determine if you will have the right people for the tasks at hand. The scratch viewpoint of this is a high level, in general picture. As you work back from the end state you will have a better idea of exactly what skills and competencies will be needed on your change journey.
As you move forward (to move backward to move forward again) always keep expertise in mind. People like to know how good they are at their work. People like to be acknowledged for their talent. This is one of the reasons people participate (I think the most powerful of the list). Use expertise in a human way to get to your business goals.
Engage
Once you have a broad view of expertise in relation to your change you can engage. Most change initiatives do not engage very well or at all early enough. There is fear of transparency and it clouds approach. Trust yourself. Do so and your stakeholders will trust you and so the change.
Now engage to gather perspective, information and gauge energy (call it “readiness” if you have to) as the foundation for your end state(s) description. Expertise should be your guiding banner (not some false inclusion approach). You value the talent you have; you engage with that talent to get to mutual goals. A great start for change from scratch.
Phases
Don’t let your PMO and project managers get their hands on the change too quickly. Doing do eliminates the chance to have change from scratch. They do a fantastic job, but, remember that expertise thing? Their expertise is in chunking up the business side of the journey and then assigning tasks (actually they tend to be detail oriented and make the tasks first then chunk them into groups). As with all competencies use in the right place at the right time.
Phases help the PMO organize and are the best time to partner CM and PM. Layering of CM within PM by phase works well (as long as you have paid attention to our previous categories and that trusted advisor is there).
Manage Time
Your PMO and PM’s will focus intensely on time and timing. From scratch change requires a different perspective of time. When you mention a moment in time, say an adoption date or for IT the date you turn off the legacy system, things change (a different meaning for the word change). “When” for change should not be addressed officially until you have things lined up clearly (and really understand your stakeholders and the end state). IT engagements especially fall apart if the drop dead date is announced too soon (having a drop dead date is not a good idea in the first place).
From scratch change must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Be realistic about timing. Be flexible about longer time frame pieces of your change. Much like promises, do not force yourself into admitting you made a mistake. And do not encourage mistakes by forcing timing.
Change is Ongoing
And ubiquitous and always going to happen and inevitable. So why not leverage current change for that next one in the future. I don’t mean laying down a turn key process (there is no such thing no matter what that other firm may be telling you). Set up patterns in this change of exchange, interaction, use of expertise and communication that can be replicated and, ideally, culturized for positive effect now and into the future. Make some change management aspects operational.
Change Management from scratch rarely, if ever, happens. We would be living in a different business environment if it did (and I honestly thing, especially in this environment the companies that figure out how to do this will leave their competitors standing still when things pick up).
To start from scratch for change requires a trusted advisor placed contracting with the owner, realistic and transparent why descriptions, connection with expertise, engagement, understanding of time and culturization of the positives. If, as a senior leader, you can figure out how to do this…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Trusted advisor explored one part of the equation.
Trust takes at least two people.
The trust summary for change management consulting is not complete without exploring the role of Trusted Partner.
First disclosure: I feel like I have had some harsh critique of leadership and leaders lately. The economy and the selfish patterns in society the last 15+ years have bred these problems. I honestly think people are inherently good and can be trusted. Environments that make it easy to be selfish and greedy quickly wear down the potential for trust.
Trusted Partner
A trusted partner must understand that business works when individuals have a chance to use their talent and skills; individuals enjoy work when business leverages their capability for gain (which creates profit for all). Change is a people/business partnership. Too much emphasis on either side of this pairing will erode trust.
When I am evaluating clients my list of trust includes:
- Their visibility in the organization
- Their track record
- Their demeanor
- Their spot on the org. chart
Their visibility in the organization
What does the potential partner think those in the organization see and say about them? If what I hear from stakeholders matches closely with what the leader says trust is likely.
Do they like to take charge and get credit for it? Do they transfer that perspective to the management of others? A leader, I think, should have balance of confidence and humility. Confidence helps with decision making; humility is the foundation for empowerment.
Their track record
What have they done in terms of leadership and how much of that was change (and how big was the change)? An aspect of trust for me personally is how well someone learns. To be a Trusted Partner a client must be able to stretch, accept certain things and try others. Without that I cannot be a Trusted Advisor- more like a trusted contractor (lower case intentional).
They do not have to bring a successful track record to the table. They rose to where they are, there is a reason for that. Mistakes and/or things that could be called not successful can still accomplish a lot on the people side. There is also lessons to be learned for the business side.
A leader ready to look at the past bad and good and learn from it for the future can be trusted (and can be consulted to and partnered with).
Their demeanor
Personality is probably impossible to change. Demeanor has some flex. Willingness to understand and listen to others in order to be successful and improve is a quality for trust.
If a potential client has a demeanor that I am comfortable with trust begins early. For me respect can overweigh a lot of things, demeanor being one of them. If this leader has done things for business and for people that are commendable demeanor becomes secondary. In fact if they have been strong for one side of the equation and are asking for help with the other we have an excellent start for a trusted partnership.
Their spot on the org. chart
Trust, for me, here has to do with the leverage and power they really have compared to where they think they are (or should be) and where they ACTUALLY are on the org. chart.
If they are being overpowered for their position that says something (not always bad- those I have considered excellent people leaders are often overpowered by the heavy business side/greedy competition). If they are not leveraging their spot on the chart that says something else.
If they can be shown where they are, where they should be and where others see them and then look to improve that I personally can trust them.
Those are my little consulting measures. What about our previous trust list from this perspective? My gauge there has as much to do with trust about the initiative as it does about the person I might contract/partner with.
The list of bullets from the trust post:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
Integrity
Will they be willing to do things after consultation that they will have to stand by? Are they bold enough and willing to take the risk of being checked on whether they do what they say they will?
Strength
They have to have some kind of strength to have risen to where they are. What is it? Does that strength fit the environment/end state they are going to work toward? Are they strong enough to adapt? It can often be important to gauge what they see as strong in others. Again does that line up with the new scenario off in the future?
Ability
Is all this even possible? Do they have the ability and have they built that in others? If not trust will have to be there to absorb the back and forth of what needs to be built and what does not. If there ability is short they may not understand what is needed. A Trusted Partner would be able to make the leap of understanding necessary.
Surety
If they have no connection to the money and most of the time if they are not the owner then they cannot be a Trusted Partner as least for the larger scale change. They can be at a scaled down tactical level though.
If they are the owner like our trust explanation, have they provided enough surety for this change to be possible? We are talking about currency at this point, but what about the currency of their own? How much of themselves are they willing to invest (in both the change and the trusted partnership)?
Charisma
Will people follow this person? Because they trust them or blindly?
Many a founder CEO has a bit of a cult following. The loyal lemmings tend to follow them over the cliff when the organization gets to big for the founders ability. Still, not too worry, the lemmings will follow just as quickly when the leader builds his/her ability and constructs change that makes sense.
And charisma is not really necessary for trust or change anyway (it is just seasoning).
Presence
Are they visible in the organization?
It is hard to trust someone who hides out. It is hard to trust someone who passes the buck. It is hard to trust someone who barks orders from the darkness.
But that too can change. There are many quiet leaders out there. I often trust that presence can be felt through others. Sometimes that is the way it should be for the change to happen.
Trust is a two way street when it comes to consulting. On one side is the Advisor on the other the Partner. Trust is the spot in the middle where they meet. A trusted partnership happens when both parties can go back and forth across the line.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, vision to work
 If this is the year of the Change Agent then it is likely to also be the year for Change Management Snake Oil salesmen. Yes completely sexist, I do not think I have ever met a women selling snake oil.
To be fair those pushing dicey change approaches aren’t actually delivering the fix in a bottle, but the promises often sound that simple.
It often seems everyone wants to be a Change Agent. Those “selling the oil” seem to think it takes one of two things: pseudo certification or having been a stakeholder during change.
The first typically creates someone trained for methods that were derived from interviewing those very people who led change. Status quo approaches creating a training program to be spread to many others (more for revenue than effective change management).
The second is a little of the same with a loud voice behind it.
If I were a client and a consultant (especially a newly minted one) dangled the elixir in front of me I would want to know where they had been placed for previous engagements, how long they were there (long is not necessarily good) and when they arrived. I would also want to know what kind of education was presented to clients to be able to get those roles. And I would want to know about any small things that built on this foundation- training roles, management roles, internal roles, big consulting firm roles etc.
Changes are not poured out of a bottle.
As a leader do not fall prey to the traveling salesman with the flashy cure.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, certification, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, training
“…reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.”
Dictionary.com
The word trust should apply to 2012.
Imagine if we had trust in leaders, trust in government, trust in the political process and trust in change.
When there is trust, there is confidence. Confidence in not only the leader but what the leader represents. When there is trust in change, that can work in reverse to help leaders establish a relationship of vision to work (and work to the vision). With trust comes calm energy toward something ahead. Trust is, I think, the foundation for change (maybe I will do hope later).
Some things to consider if you are evaluating trust in your leadership or your change; some things to consider ahead of time to build trust:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
integrity
Do you do what you say you will?
If things do not work out is it obvious you tried your best (for the benefit of all)?
Or do you couch all of your statements in vagaries in order to have an out and/or the ability to deny you promised anything (look to politics for examples of this)?
When it comes to change and trust never hesitate to promise. Just make sure your promises are well thought out, with others in mind (the core of integrity, I think) and attainable.
Doing so is integral to change.
strength
Will hopefully come from integrity.
You can add to that by understanding others and taking action that will be agreed to by enough people to be possible. You might add to that strength by considering in some way those who would not agree as quickly. Strength for change, especially horizontal change, comes from understanding, leveraging (and rewarding) individual strength and skill.
Each individual strengthened makes the leader stronger.
ability
Hopefully you have. Not to be flippant, but what it takes to be trusted is not always present in senior leaders. A 20 something is now the “Supreme Leader” of a country. Any trust there? Any ability?
You have to be able to do the thing you will be measured, trusted, on. The higher your leadership position the more you will need the supporting ability (and participation) of others.
When it comes to change, leadership ability is about being able to do something yourself, teach others and empower for action, results and outcome.
For trust to happen I think leaders need to strategically get their hands dirty. They need to participate with actual work (not that leveraging through others is not a type of work of its own…) that moves toward end states. Otherwise they will be seen as the leader who barks the orders, or quietly passes the buck. Trust in those situations is tenuous.
Those able work. Stakeholders look for that and see it when it is missing in leaders.
surety
Applies for trust in a legal environment.
For change it is more important than you think. Budgets dictate everything. Budgets are their own promises with trust as a foundation. Compensation is one of the motivators for stakeholders- not necessarily the first individually, but might be for project budgeting money.
What are you providing as collateral for this change? Is that enough for stakeholders to trust that it is possible to reach the end state?
Are you sure?
charisma
I am adding my own to Dictionary.com’s definition.
Charisma can build a trust of its own. Trust can have an emotional level- the gut instinct or gut reaction. “This just feels right.”; “I feel good about blanks leadership and vision.”; “This leader makes thing happen.”.
You don’t get to create charisma (stakeholders see through fake charisma- again see politics for examples). Charisma comes from our list for trust above. It also comes from being human, being humble and, as our moms would say, being nice.
Not to be stereotypical but our dads might say it also comes from being effective.
Charismatics leaders should be getting things done.
presence
I am hearing stories of executives in large organizations consciously walling off the rest of the organization. Of course this happens, it is, unfortunately a bad side to human nature. But to have it happen out in the open (should I mention politics again for examples?) leaves a bitter taste. Bitter and trust are like oil and water, but heating things up will never get the first two to mix.
For change you have to be visible as a leader to build trust. Visible means voice, written word, virtual face and face-to-face. It helps it you are visible through others too (see ability above). I can give a plug here for external consultants. Because the good, senior ones do not hesitate to rove the organization, your message, your connection and, by extension trust, can be spread quickly- much more quickly than can be delivered by anyone you have internal.
To plan where you will be, how you will be seen and what your stakeholders will think of that (keeping trust in mind) at the end state will be seen as prescient (better that than parviscient or nescient).
Trust is built on a combination of ability, presence, strength and surety. It is seen through charisma and integrity. When trust is present stakeholders want to participate in change and do so because this change falls on a continuum of success and leadership (as will the next if you have paid attention).
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, definitions, engagement, External Consultant, horizontal change management, leadership, vision to work, words
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
