|
|
||
|
The longer a consultant is external and the more client environments they experience the less each seems different. Or let’s be fair and say the more they are the same. From the change management viewfinder that is a function of “Human Nature” (in quotes so you can decide if it exists). Here are a few examples- Expecting multiple years in a “lower” position before a promotion. Things like this put smiles on the faces of the successful 25 year old entrepreneurs. Have you every done the kid safety drill? You know, the one where you get down on the ground and crawl around looking for potential danger? Of course, kid that I am at heart, I rolled, slid and somersaulted too… The world is entirely different down there. That, for awhile anyway, is the world of a toddler.
There is a theory in quantum mechanics that it is possible the future influences the present (and possibly the past). I dug into it in a recent Discover Magazine article. And did my best to understand the true meaning for quantum mechanics, but big picture mentality that I have… I got to wondering how that might look for the change process. It could mean there are multiple versions of result and effect. Basically versions of success and failure. Successful establishment of process and an adaptation of culture to speed change if the future has anything to do with it should be the hand that pulls in the present. Successful change management communication informs stakeholders of the time and place for their work. Time- is the relationship of stakeholder work and participation to the total amount of time for the initiative, the time frame of the phase(s) they are included in and the period they will need to accomplish their tasks. Place- is the relationship of that work to participation and tasks that occur before and after their own (and possibly a connection of importance to the bigger picture). Well of course this is simple time and project management right? If we communicate what is happening then we are doing a good job. “Bring me your plans on Monday morning for a 10% reduction of cost in your function”. For many 2009 was the year of cutting costs. For most it was the year of skimming costs. From a practical external perspective this skimming makes little sense. From an empathetic perspective it does, but empathy must always be balanced against profit in business. Unless you, as the executive making the decision, thinks your whole organization is 10% (pick your number) heavy it seems taking away resources everywhere will not only reduce productivity but drag down moral at the same time. What is more important for whole organization change, design/structure or method/approach?…tempting, but it will be more collaborative to let this have a life of its own. This was a question I asked on LinkedIn that elicited some interesting responseshttp://preview.tinyurl.com/yby9mu2 if you want the full thread At Vision to Work, Inc. we have a process for laying out change called the 5 W’s. It is a way to simplify the change process and address different kinds of people at different spots in the timeline. Those 5 W’s are (in this order) :
Some people want to know why before they jump in. Some people want to know where the change will land. Some want to know who will be participating, when and at what level of accountability. When change fails it is because of two reasons, politics or disconnected strategy. And the second is often because of the first so now we are down to one reason.
See Glossary for definition http://blog.visiontowork.com/?p=49 but basically any change that uses money from an executive who either is the CEO or reports to the CEO (although in Fortune 50 it could be the next horizontal). Any title below SVP means they are the project manager. I know a harsh definition because there can be multi million dollar initiatives run (key word here) by Directors. A call to C level executives (and board members)- there is a huge, expensive gap in every organization I have seen in the last 15 years in terms of effectively tying people to business objectives for grand ideas and huge corporate initiatives. End StateThe description of the end of the change process. This would include all of the things that will be different but always in words that illustrate a new state rather than a disrupted current state. Future StateThe end of the change. I also use it to describe the end state before it is officially defined (pre-”Why”). Current StateI am almost tempted to strikethrough this one. This is the change at the beginning. It is not struck-through because an end state process could still work BACK to this. |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 Vision to Work, Inc. - All Rights Reserved Bad Behavior has blocked 13 access attempts in the last 7 days. |
||
