|
|
I keep hearing about transition periods for change, the need for buy-in, the difficulty of altering status quo and I think of all the times that one thing can just replace another. Wait long enough to upgrade some technology and you can start from scratch. Get irritated enough with your processes and technology within your company and bringing in all new stuff is not much of a stretch.
As a leader decide if you, or your change practitioners, are spending too much time highlighting the thing, process, structure, even people that do not fit in to the end state. If you have a new picture in mind that does not include those things why keep calling them out? It gets to be a bad habit in the change timeline.
As a practitioner, craft that end state through your interactions with the owner, leaders and stakeholders without the present as baggage. Take the time for that. You may see that this is replacement rather than transitional change.
As a stakeholder maybe stop spending so much time trying to figure out how this new thing compares to what you have. Maybe they are really two different things? Maybe making them unconnected in time would make it easier to get to your end state version?
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
~ Richard Buckminster Fuller, American visionary, designer, architect, poet, author, and inventor
Look at the titles given Fuller:
Visionary to imagine.
Designer to craft.
Architect to build.
Poet to message.
Author to record.
Inventor to create.
Good skill set for replacement change!
Technorati Tags: change excercise, Executive, leader, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision, vision to work
Rather than, “how would my mechanic do this” – the I need it by this afternoon kind of change, think how NASA might approach this. I have no idea how NASA approaches the things they do, but I am guessing it is not by quickly (urgently?) taking a step before they talk or plan. Yet that is often how organizational change works- let’s just start, the energy will bring the stragglers along with us.
If you were the leader in charge of getting to Mars how might you go about it?
- What is Mars?
- What would be the reason to be there?
- Once there, what would that look like?
- How far away is it?
- In general how would you get there?
- What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
- Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
- Now put task within the pieces.
- Now look to see that is missing and needed.
What is Mars?
This thing you are going to needs to be defined. That way your explanations can be pinned to something. You can come up with what it is physically, with what it is metaphorically and with what it means (likely an emotional definition).
What would be the reason to be there?
Why go to Mars? Is this for scientific discovery? Is it to see if Mars might be habitable? Is it for the achievement? It could be all of the above. It will be important to know why and be able to justify and explain this end state.
Once there, what would that look like?
Having explained why, what exactly might this look like, being on Mars? Would this just be a probe? A person? People? Something else? Being able to think about what it would feel like and mean to actually get to that end state, then carry on, is important. This does not have to be pie in the sky dreaming. It can be based on what the end state means in terms of advancement, in corporate terms maybe profit, distinctness from the status quo etc.
How far away is it?
Not necessarily exact distance (corporate change is not going to have a “miles [or kilometers] equivalent) but how big is this? Dealing with the small is impossible until you understand the big. Sure many will just want to get started on some details, after all this is going to take a long time we need to start WORKING! Someone has to understand the big in order to break it up into parts. In our NASA scenario part of the measurement of distance might be by generations.
Imagine working on something at NASA that you will never see actually happen, because you will not live that long.
In general how would you get there?
There is the distance, there is the scale and there is the journey. What will carry you on this journey? In our NASA case it is some kind of spaceship (likely a huge change initiative just for that part). For a company that may be an internal vs. external discussion, a method discussion, a leadership discussion or a high level competency talk (don’t get into the weeds of specifics now!- you will never get to “Mars” if you do).
What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
So, in general, what is it going to take in terms of expertise to get to that end state? Will there be skill building? Will those skills need to be stacked up to create missing competencies? Are you, and your stakeholders, going to need to see things differently in some way? Will that mean you have to do things differently? Are you prepared to do those things together when necessary?
I have to give the external plug- do you really think you can see this on you own? What do you actually see when you look in the mirror?
Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
This “Mars trip” will have pieces- a spaceship, equipment, scientific tools (likely some not invented yet), fuel, operations, overhead etc. Those pieces likely fall into a general time frame with overlaps. How much of the work can be shared so as not to be duplicated. In the Mars case do you need duplication for safety?
For corporate change this may fall into your preferred approach to change- some project management framework. That may be fine, but jump back to the last paragraph first and look in the mirror, or ask your external consultant to interpret the reflection. It may be time to come up with a different set of big pieces.
Now put task within the pieces.
Either way you will then need to break these pieces down into smaller more manageable parts. Notice I have said nothing about time or dates. Please tell me you did not announce, “We will get to Mars on blank day”. Say good bye to your date right now- let alone your end state.
Now look to see what is missing and needed.
If you made it to this point you did a good job of imaging what that end state might be, even looking past it, then working back to the present. Mars is a great example because it is hard to make a current versus future approach for this journey. A lot of change is creating, inventing and growing NOT replacing.
What are you missing? As you looked at those big pieces and thought about some smaller pieces did you see that you might not have the talent to get the work done?
Can you build your own organization to fill those gaps? After all this is a really long journey, there is time to develop while some of the doable work happens.
While you are working on that competency filling, can you overlap your efforts and strengthen your everyday operations at the same time? Generations from now someone might want to go to Pluto or a place we have not found yet. You can make both the present and the future better by thinking both bigger and smaller.
As you look at your organizational change think how NASA might approach this. Big, expansive thought translated into small detail pieces, passing through the stages and the people needed to get there. Big back to small so the small can be shown to connect to the big.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, vision, vision to work
Viable:
1. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses
2. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
Viability:
the capacity to operate or be sustained: The viability of the company was guaranteed by the success of its new product.
Dictionary.com
Viable Change
Is change that can grab participation.
It is change that challenges, stimulates and helps individuals to grow.
Change that is viable stretches strategy, people, available tactics and leadership.
Viable change can be vivid, real or stimulating and it can be vivid, real AND stimulating. If it does so in connection with intellect and imagination then, just maybe, the end state itself will also be viable.
Change Viability
If so then that end state, that result of the change should be sustainable. The new environment should be able to operate for the benefit and profit of both individuals (all, not just leadership) and the organization of stakeholders, owners and shareholders.
An important component of Change Viability is operations. Viable Change to have Change Viability must entwine with operations. It must be so connected to imagination and a workable future that operations adapts and grows with it.
Viable change and change that is viable must be inextricably mixed with operations. Then it can be workable and practical (to the extent that grand change is practical in the moment) and stimulate at an individual level.
Technorati Tags: change management strategy, Change Strategy, vision to work
Honestly, when was the last time you let your fingers do the walking?
(and, if you are young do you have any idea what that reference means?).
My family arrived home late from a dinner with friends and there on the porch was the new phone book. It made me think of the Steve Martin line, “The new phone book’s here, the new phone book’s here. Do you realize what this means? Now I can BE somebody!”. I knew, like the phone book the line would have zero meaning for my kids.
They would think it quaint to look someone up in that silly yellow book. (although, admittedly they do use their school directory). Why do we still have phone books? I have thrown away at least the last 7 or 8 years worth without even opening the cover. Even my wife, the ultimate Luddite, says recycle it the instant she sees it.
Again why do we still have phone books?
My daughter got a net book from Santa. The first thing she wanted to do was load a CD she got from an older relative. A music CD. People still use those things?
I heard the other day that you cannot bring a camera that uses tapes through security. It has to have a hard drive or a small GB drive.
I taught my mom how to drive with her fingers on the freeway- each tap up or down makes the car move a mph. She loves it. Who would have thought you could ever do that? And what happened to all the crashes we were going to have when we changed to cruise control?
There are a lot of things that change for the better- I cannot imagine a drive without cruise control. And there are lot of things that just refuse to go away (change)- think phone books.
As an English major I would never wish books away, but my most well read friends are packing Kindles this year.
I think there is a lesson here. In your own life look at the things around you that have changed. Take a stroll back through your change journey. Why did you switch? What do you miss? Anything? What changes have been helpful? What would you like to bring back (real stuff not the pretend past of politics that never existed)?
Things have their place in time. Sometimes they lose their place to something else. Corporate change can be a lot like that. Savor the new, but don’t pine for the past. After all those phone books seem to keep arriving- something from the past to cling to.
Technorati Tags: Change, resistance to change
At some point things will really pick up (they are slowly moving now) in terms of change roles, strategy and innovation (which is the precursor for strategy and the need for strategic resources). I think late 2012, possibly after the US elections , will be that time.
- At least for senior change practitioners I think we will see demand quickly outstrip supply. Consultants are often on one year to two year engagements now. Each time one of those engagements starts someone is off the market. The supply can run out fast.
- At that point mid level consultants are going to begin to question the need for third parties and raise their rates. When clients feel their margins hit they will look to contract directly with consultants to slow that process. At the same time third parties will begin to get squeezed and consolidate or move on to the next vacuum.
- Negative, resistance fighting change will not be popular.
- Templated change will follow strategy (or clients will be talked out of the purchase and customize their own change).
- Change management will break out of its infancy and become more sophisticated. Understanding motivators and expectations will rank high on the CM competency list.
- Change management consultants, external and internal, will be expected to mentor others.
- The differences between strategic and tactical change will be called out by thought leaders and understood by organizational leaders.
Some signs that things are changing:
- Rates are rising quickly
- Clients are asking for ASAP availability (and actually speeding up their processes to make sure they get the right talent fast)
- Old roles from 2011 are reappearing (with rates 30 – 40% higher)
- Those same roles, even with the raised rates are going unfilled
- Clients are making contacts directly with consultants
- The big consulting firms are posting, and calling about, sub contracting roles (the step that occurs before they begin to fill their stable again)
- I can vouch for a big increase in blog traffic with longer average time per visit to posts that reflect approach, cost and internal/external discussions (that always means hiring will pick up)
I could make a list of things I hope will happen in 2012, all of which would be a return to client consultant direct relationships for both contracting and partnership. I think we have lost that.
Third party (and four and five) arrangements have squeezed client and consultant. When consultants must hustle roles the instant they finish a previous engagement (because they are barely compensated more than employees [who have also had a major hit to compensation in the last few years]) there is no time for the kind of thought, education and skill building that make them so valuable. When clients must refill roles (which rarely happens in direct relationships) they spend (for the right consultant who will now charge, if they are smart, a premium for the client mistake of bringing them in late) everything they saved and more.
Constriction, sometimes euphemistically called “cost savings” eventually has significant and costly (to steal the word) effects. We will see some of those surface in 2012. If the constriction lasts longer we will begin to see an erosion in competency, innovation and ability to change smoothly and “quickly”. I am rooting for the turnabout soon.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management consultant, organizational change, strategy
New years resolutions like change, especially establishing end state scenarios, are bound to disappoint.
That is no reason to avoid resolutions or end state planning.
I have found (thanks to a change management career, lots of listening and the chance to see results) it helps to have resolutions that enrich both you and your stakeholders.
Here are mine for the coming year:
For readers:
- A redesign of my site with an option to switch to a lighter design (you either like dark or not).
- More publishing, not just blogs but articles, white papers and, dare I say, “The Book”.
- Better organization of content so your interest is easier to find.
- A reach out for input, suggestions and interest from readers.
- Some regularly scheduled post topics (series, parts, “word” posts etc.).
- Flexibility if it turns out readers have different reasons for frequenting my site than I am assuming.
For me:
- All of the above repeated (I can see I would be equally enriched if I lived up to them- change is like that).
- Collateral for my use with clients and to increase revenue.
- Seminars, webinars, podcasts and, if I can go without sleep, video.
- A reach out beyond my blog to others with the end state focus message.
- Finding a senior executive who gets it and is willing to be an evangelist for the importance of seeing end states and working back from the descriptions.
If you are a regular reader (I never really thought about having readers. It just seemed important to speak up. Thank you for listening!) and want to add to my list for you, me or items of your own others can grab please speak up. I would love to have 2012 be more of an exchange and dialogue- with 450 posts and counting it appears there is a lot to talk about!
Technorati Tags: Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, stakeholders
This is part two for horizontal change strategy questions. Part 1 asked Consultant to Client questions.
I am assuming the client is the owner (pays for the change, is seen by stakeholders as the top executive connected to the change). Later posts will look at implementary clients and their questions.
- What has your role been for change in the past?
- Is change management a science or art?
- What tools do you use?
- Define change management
- What do you think keeps change from happening?
What has your role been for change in the past?
Depending on the type of change you are pursuing you may look for different answers to this question.
I this is a big, high, broad (truly in need of a horizontal approach) transformation you want the answer to be: facilitator, mentor, consultative support, planner, organizer, rover, “disconnected” external resource. You are looking for an external voice and perspective to help scout the path, alert you to obstacles and help to build YOUR ownership of the change.
If this is smaller horizontal change (say within a big function) the answer can be: Director of Change Management, Change Management Consultant, add your own internal monikers or the first answer. Because change is about a new status quo (no matter how big or small) I personally think you HAVE to have an external guide.
You might want to add some extra questions in about going native, were they in a contracting role (they will be much less consultative), how big/how high/ how important were the initiatives, did they work with clients who understand change, etc.
Is change management a science or art?
Perspective is crucial for change management. It guides assumptions which then dictates approach. Think of the positive people you know. Think of the negative people you know (sorry to make you do that). Which one do you want to work with you?
Those who see CM as more art than science will fall in the positive category (yes generalization). The “scientists” in the bunch not so much so. What is important is how they will be received by the stakeholders in relation to the change. Stakeholders usually feel like guinea pigs with the scientists. In fairness they may feel like they landed at a hippie retreat with the artists.
The answer you want is, “I think CM is an art practiced best by those who understands where science might fit in.”
Smart CM artists know when to use science. By definition someone with a scientific perspective must be less creative and group and lump things together to support their hypothesis (in this case that means their perspective). People, individuals, your stakeholders, see themselves as unique- that “lumping” thing does not usually go over too well.
What tools do you use?
If they are quick to answer, call for the next in line.
If they say, it depends, follow through with some more questions.
Why do you use tools? Or why that specific tool?
What is it you leverage with the use of the tool?
Is this a package of tools that follow your methodology? (If yes, consider putting that second consultant in the batting box).
What you are looking for is a consultant that uses tools to build toward the end state, not just to check off a task, to look busy or to cater to mid level leaders (they love tools and deliverables because that is how you measure their performance). An example: the ubiquitous stakeholder analysis (yes I do use versions of this tool). The stakeholder analysis is a way to see who is involved in the project, when they should be included and to what level that inclusion is realistic. To fill in all those blanks means a lot of interviewing, asking questions, explaining CM and the reason for the tool (and yes maybe a deliverable) and connecting with stakeholders.
When it comes to the tool question look for follow through. No stakeholder ever participated wholeheartedly in change because of a tool.
Define change management
You could ask this first to see how the tool/science/art perspective comes out in the explanation.
If that trio does not come out, next in line, they do not understand change management in context with the past, today and tomorrow.
The answer should have to do with end states rather than gap filling; something about management being a strange word connected to change; a sentence or two about individuals and competency; and a little about where CM is heading.
You want someone who can pull from the past, mix in their own expertise (that came from experience, study and application) and apply that to your specific scenario. (That sentence is actually what change is- history, competency, end state).
What do you think keeps change from happening?
This will be revealing.
And again it could be the first question (especially if your line of consultants to talk to is long).
If they say people, if they mention resistance, if they put blame strictly on leaders, if they miss process, structure and competency… next in line.
What keeps change from happening are all the things built in to your organization that reinforce status quo. Once those things are built, working on the people (you know those “resistors”) is putting a band-aid on a deep wound.
If they respond, “in your organization?” and then say, “it could be you”, hire them.
Designing a horizontal change strategy, especially if a change entity is to be built as part of the plan, requires a consultant with an incredibly broad experience set, and a competency set to match. That same broad strategic expert will also need an empathetic, individual, tactical perspective to help you come up with a strategy that leads you to end states and can be executed.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
A title in a Linked in discussion forum: “Does your organization have a change plan for 2012?”.
My first reaction was that anything that can fall into a year (unless we are talking about a small organization) is more likely a project, maybe a program, but not likely large change. Plans for the next year are not change management (and I would say this type of thinking dilutes change management into two words that mean anything you want) they are operations. You could list the things that are changing. You could call out the things that might be different the next year (maybe a little mini end state). But if you are talking about the organization as a whole it is not a change plan.
Really it is tactical strategy (I know today’s oxymoron).
A change plan in the sense of this title (scrunched into a year) is a project plan for the organizations operations for the next year.
To call it otherwise makes the REAL change management difficult- yes everything has change, but why do we keep shining a light on simple operational changes and treating it like the big stuff?
My title question would be: Do you have an operational plan for 2012? with a subtitle of Does it include adjustments for small changes?
Change plans, if there is such a thing, are not for whole organizations for a set period of time. They are templates for defined initiatives that require major adjustments of perspective, work and behavior (almost always lasting more than a year).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change management, change management strategy, Change Strategy, strategy
This probably does not need much explanation. I can’t imagine there is anyone, at least here in the US, who is not connected directly with someone who has been laid off, lost their job or had their contract cut short (only to have difficulty in replacing the role). Even those in that lofty 1% have peers with major negative career changes (or in the oft chance that is not the case the same 1% likely had a hand in eliminating jobs).
It is what is. Which ought to be the change management motto.
In order to facilitate change in this stripped environment a few things need to be kept in the forefront:
- There is pain. Obviously anyone you bring on is carrying it with them. Acknowledge that and help them move forward in a positive way. Keep in mind those who stayed are in pain in a different way.
- Which shows itself in a desperate need for trust. Those very executives who let the last group go are now leading the charge with the leftovers (who says those remaining think they were the winners?). If those executives are not personally connected to the change (and clearly accountable for the results) you have a long road ahead of you.
- The internal backlash is to hunker down in your silo and refortify the walls- good luck with Horizontal Change. Someone has to be able to scale the walls to present the Makes Sense change. Ideally that is senior executives, secondarily that is the change management consultant carrying the message, the third option is to leverage the senior leaders within the silo to carry the message. Barring all that some version of collaborative cross functional teamwork needs to appear.
- Everything is virtual and travel budgets went with the layoffs. Now you have to have a local representative when you use awareness and brown bag sessions. Somehow, some way there needs to be actual in person connection. The more horizontal, the more cross functional, the better.
- It is time for ideas. Enough with the “this needs to be done tomorrow approach”. Every deliverable should be questioned for its ability to move things into the future. Every meeting should have a why component (and a hint: the insistence on action steps from meetings is not necessarily productive- especially if you are looking through a long term lens).
- How about some genuine “you did well” at the personal level rewards, kudos and acknowledgements?
Someone, some group of people stripped the human element from careers, jobs and roles. Everything is commoditized in the interest of productivity. Half of your work neighbors seem to have gone missing (and if you look a lot of them are doing better as things pick up- change is good). Change in that environment takes a special kind of tact and knowledge.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, corporate change management, Executive, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance, resistance to change, vision to work
Organizations are beginning to create corporate entities (a 2011 trend) that help to tie together multiple initiatives, programs and projects (many of which go beyond just operational efforts). Progress is in its nascency. This is the emergence of something good for Change Management (and likely even more work for senior practitioners since this is usually done as a grassroots effort and tends to run into its own problems).
This is creating different types of change management roles with different placement spots in the organization and a need for different sets of skills.
The new roles:
- Strategic Change Management
- Tactical Change Management
- Implementary Change Management
- Adoptive (or Supportive or Sustaining) Change Management
Strategic Change Management
This is a high level, both in the organization and for consultant experience and standing, long term-broad view role. Strategic change management deals with the largest, longest term initiatives. This is the kind of role where a consultant is genuinely given permission to reveal root causes for the organizations difficulties. This person should be in the conversations with executives that occur immediately after ideas (ideally the consultant is involved in actual strategy sessions where the ideas appear).
To serve this role well the consultant absolutely should be external. They need 10+ years of experiences in all of our roles. The ability to see things from all angles to understand strategy, implementation, business and people equally well is their competency set. It doesn’t hurt if they also bring to the table training, communication and design (both org. and graphic) knowledge and expertise.
This is the role that would design a high level organization wide change entity. This is true Corporate Change Management.
Tactical Change Management
This is the change management role most people think of when they define a CM role.
Their work is layered over project management. They make the translation from strategy to implementation. There can be multiple CM’s in the organization that represent different areas (internal functions, specific projects etc.).
It is in this role that many senior consultants (because strategic change management is not yet understood and/or accepted) find themselves stuck. Failure that they might see in their change efforts is typically caused by lack of executive connection to the change translation (or even the change itself).
Tactical change management while it should not be, is still a heavy deliverable role. Your hands “get dirty” when you do this work- lots of assessments, communications, training design and meetings (hopefully not consistent written reports although that often happens).
I am beginning to see the absolute necessity for good tactical change management practitioners. It is here that internal CM’s can shine. Even more so if they are supported by the external strategic role.
Implementary Change Management
These are the leaders within the organization that make things happen. They are the organizers, the people working around the globe to translate into sales, action, behavior change and participation at the user level. They are often the testers, the askers, the shoulders-to-cry-on and the mentors for all of the different forms change takes.
This is definitely an internal role- that should be given visibility and responsibility.
Adoptive (or Supportive or Sustaining) Change Management
This also is a new role appearing.
This is the person who stays on after the change hits the milestone called “adoption” or “transformation”. They help to keep stakeholders from falling back to previous patterns, status quo and behaviors. They understand that sustainability has a lot to do with follow through close to the user. Functional executives are crucial partners for this person.
This can be internal or external, there are benefits for both. An internal will likely have a closer connection to the stakeholders and can interpret from the organizations perspective (hopefully the new one created as a result of the change). An external can be invaluable for feeding information back to the strategic CM for consideration moving to the future on other initiatives.
New roles are appearing for change management thanks to some failures of old approaches, new perspectives, better understanding and a few successful organic efforts here and there. Those roles are strategic, tactical, implementary and supportive. Yes, sometimes they are still wrapped up into one role/one person.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management strategy, External Consultant, Insights, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
