|
|
Something like 4 million people have looked at this video http://tinyurl.com/2rzrn9. In case it takes more views than that to saturate the You Tube market I give you the link. It is about education, the future (told in 2006) and a whole bunch of fun and intriguing facts. You will also quickly see it is about how things around us change- our environment, our resources, our tools and our capabilities.
And, I have to give this plug, it is an awesome, simple, clear use of black and color.
This is one of the best media presentations I have seen in the way it rolls out information, is fun, has no fluff and uses all of the screen wisely (which to me means lots of space). It uses the space with movement, stillness, appearance of important items at the right time (and not too fast and not too glaring) and, again, color.
Now for the editorial comment-
Juxtapose this video with the way change management is presented and rolled out.
Certainly I will give up the black (not truly a color anyway) but not color in general. Color can be used to categorize communications, illustrate emotion (the whole red is fire, blue is cool strength thing), differentiate timelines, place things in an exact spot (with a relation to things around it) and just plain make things more interesting. Which introduces another aspect of the word color- the commentator kind. CM is typically colorless (maybe due to the automatic assumption that people say no before yes). Start out with a clean lack of color (white) or all color (black) slate and add or take away to build interest, increase attention and make business and change a little more like real life. Yes I mean that metaphorically, but as you can see in the video it works literally for presentations too.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change communications, communicate, Communications, engagement, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Many of change managements “less than successes” (I am growing tired of seeing the word failure and change tied together with little explanation) are a result of misguided perceptions, false assumptions and detrimental naivety. Here are a few-
- Having the IT manager responsible for change for technical initiatives
- Having the project manager responsible for change for all initiatives
- Crowning someone buried in the middle of the organization with a role that touches all
- Change fails 70% of the time (what is that stat and how is it possibly helpful for anything but fear marketing of books and models?)
- There are 8 steps and it is essential to put them in order
- Urgency is a positive for change
- Everything must be run through a committee
- Once we figure this out we can “run it up the chain” works
- Everyone has to be involved
There are many more.
Before you hit the ground running stop and look at your assumptions- they may haunt you throughout the process if not.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, horizontal change management
“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
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
The most important competency for a change practitioner is sense of time.
“…understanding current change capability and capacity requires the horizon of a CM to extend back into the past.
And ensuring sustainability requires a perspective further into the future.” Gail Severini from blog post.
Thanks Gail. This is pulled out of a longer post focused on the difference between CM and PM practitioners, but may be the key to a lot of what change management is about.
The Present
In a way does not exist. It is gone at the speed of thought. A Change practitioner must understand the concept of present. For it is in those spots, those frozen moments where change happens and where it gets recorded. The present is a moving line that represents completion and transition. The present IS status quo. Present is a reality that exists in each stakeholders head. It is something to be acknowledged. It is a grounding spot to illustrate before, transition and after.
The Past
Very much exists- even though it shouldn’t. Because after all it is gone. Where is does exist is within each stakeholders realm of comfort. The past is predictable, immovable- like a concrete foundation. The past is visible to everyone, even futurists. Its negative is the difficulty of erasal. Its positive is as measurement. Numbers and facts come from the past. Predictions and plans arise from those numbers.
The Future
May or may not happen. It will arrive in some way, but like the present is quickly gone. What is interesting about the future is that it is the past transitioned through the present to again be the past. The typical mistake here for CM is to see the future as a transition from the present (think current and future state). Remember the past does not go away. So the future in terms of change should be the end state arrived at through the lens of the past, the capacity of the present and an eye to the next future.
Where does this “most important competency” come in then?
A CM practitioner must be able to recognize and articulate the past (in all its glory and stranglehold), put it in perspective and then feed that assimilation into a dialogue and description of the end state. They must not let the past or the present hold the future hostage.
They leverage that with their innate sense of what happens when you tweak these three views of time in any given direction. Clients should expect change agents to quickly recognize what will happen when different levers are pulled, or pushed. Change agents will know the relative resistance power of timing, demands, resources, communication, collaboration etc.
CM’s, if they are good, know there will be stakeholders living in the past (sounds bad, but not necessarily), intent on checking things off in the present (even if the list is twice as long as it needs to be) or travelling at the speed of dreams (thanks Jimmy Buffet for that one). They all stand on the timeline of change.
You might say the Change Management Practitioner is the driver of the DeLorean, with the capability to travel back and forth in time and across the future, separate from the stakeholders and the initiative.
…and wouldn’t you know I saw a DeLorean for sale the other day…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, change management consultant, End State, future state, Garrett Gitchell, vision, vision to work
Having worked under six methodologies not including my own approach I am beginning to wonder why the heavy emphasis on deliverables? Not solutions, results and goal attainment but paperwork (literally or electronic). Budgets typically fall well short of the needed expenditure for CM/external resources. To use those expensive, under-budgeted for resources for paperwork makes no sense.
My fly on the wall perspective of both those internal and other consulting firms trying to be noticed is this-
Deliverables are consulting firms justification. The more paperwork, the more report outs, presumably (in their minds), the better they look.
Deliverables are the internal path to covering tracks. The more you record, the easier it is to pass the buck later. The more you report out on the more it looks like you worked your tail off (in truth it was on the creation of the deliverable, but no one seems to bring that up). Internally deliverables are also a way to police and micro manage.
And so who are the deliverables for?
Sometimes they are used to report to executives- who I know for a fact prefer dialogue to PowerPoint. Sometimes they are a requirement of a methodology or process. Sometimes they are created to try to prove a point or sell a new idea. I am not sure this answers who they are for though… I tend to think the answer is the person who created them (which makes the expenditure of time even more senseless).
What Should deliverables be for?
As a map to the next steps. Methodologies heavy on paperwork usually have assessments and then recommendations in two separate documents. In my own approach I gather information, find areas unseen by the client (or difficult to see as an internal) and layer that over the path to the end state. Recommendations are ongoing. Assessments are a constant dialogue. The deliverable is a living, breathing, malleable guide to tasks, process and “be aware of’s”.
Just ask yourself this- Is your change process always ahead of your deliverables? Which is easier slowing the change or reducing deliverables? One of them has to give, because organizations do not have the money or the patience for both.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Garrett Gitchell
Change Management like project management, leadership and the implementation of strategy is not immune to insidious scope creep.
Inclusive Creep
“George, over there will need to be involved with this”. “Sue has a hand in this we should include her in this meeting”. Choose your comment, the list is long. All are based on a misunderstanding of what it takes to guide change. The change process has an end state, that is where you are heading. So inclusion is based on the journey to that end state. It is often a fine line in deciding who genuinely needs to be involved.
Guilty until proven productive is the mantra.
As an external I personally assume someone does not need to be there and then look for signs that I might be wrong. Juxtapose that to the internal players (especially those smack in the middle of the organization) who think everyone should be involved. Admittedly there are also practitioners and models that basically say “the more the merrier”. Merry maybe; effective questionable.
Too little, too late, too low Creep
Yesterday’s post http://horizontalchange.com/2010/07/looping-in-leaders-uphill-change-management/ illustrates this phenomenon. When change resources are brought in too late are to few in number and are placed below the owner, creep is essential. It is essential because, obviously, the scope was wrong in the first place. But rather than one by one roping in those left out it is better to hard stop and reevaluate scope. As with consulting contracting if the time and money will not support the new parameters then the change must be reduced in size.
Structural Creep
Think committees. Think pretend matrixed organizations (those that are simply inclusive rather than collaborative for results). Structural creep happens when the organization has built in expansion for every change. Usually created out of fear of change, and the decisions required and the results of bad decisions, structural creep mechanisms can literally stop change. Hence the saying “…where good ideas go to die.”
You cannot typically change structure easily (it is a change initiative all by itself) but as a leader or external practitioner you can help to guide decision-less pieces of the change into that structure while corralling those that need specific things to move forward into smaller, more nimble (and more authoritative) teams.
Creep is the result of poor planning and lack of front end work. Creep is also a symptom of either an incorrectly placed change agent or an inexperienced one who is always a little behind the change timeline or, usually, both.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
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
Big change necessitates big solutions, big results and a big effort. Big tends to be overwhelming; overwhelming tends to get drawn back into status quo. Big then, for an external consultant with a different kind of view, illuminates all of the little “smalls” that hold an organization back for change and or innovation. Root causes are the smalls. To successfully tackle big solutions small root causes must be blocked or remedied either first or as part of the change process.
Then, and only then, can the layers of the big problem be peeled back to be integrated into the process of change.
Judging by the environments I have seen in organizations, all there because of root causes, it is tough to get to the core. It usually takes an uncomfortable look at culture and process- two things that have heavy ownership.
Here is an example I have seen in multiple organizations-
Committee structures.
The idea behind a committee is to create a venue for input, dialogue and then output of smart decisions, approaches and direction. A noble view. The addition of this structure to an organization is usually the result of less noble root causes. When the culture operates as a mirror to the leader and everyone begins to talk and act like the leader and the competition has a more democratic (over the whole organization) culture/operation it seems time to add committees.
Look carefully at this and you will see the committee structure is an attempt at a solution without addressing the root cause.
No, you do not have to oust the leader (it is the behaviors that are the root cause not necessarily the leader as an individual). And no, working tirelessly on the new committee structure is not the right approach. Yes you can keep the committees in this case, as long as you understand that committees are entities that quickly separate from the whole and, as a result, become toothless.
Let’s say the organization got to this “committees as a solution” spot because the original leader is charismatic, gets people on board, moves things forward quickly, but is autocratic. This can work if the big problems can stay within the reach of the leader. Get too big and you have layers and layers of built up solutions with a protected, hidden, hard to get to root cause core.
So you are an external dropped into this scenario or you ARE the leader (last nights epiphany made the whole thing crystal clear) how would you begin to address this?
Your root cause is “autocratic”. Every “problem” you see in the organization big and small connects to your root cause. Look at our leader list (charismatic, on board, move quick, autocratic) and strip out the last. Take the three left and transfer them to other high level leaders. Repeat in layers outward (not vertically into functions- you are liable to repeat the root cause). You will begin to get solutions that are, nicely, based on the core strengths of the organization, an emulation of the positives of the original leader.
What about those committees then?
The committees are vehicles (not the solution). Use them as the place where the transfer of leadership and the development of competencies takes place. Use the ineffectual, separated nature of committees to advantage in creating a safe environment of exchange. Your leaders will appear. The top leader must then take the good that appears, illuminate it and then disconnect from the path that follows.
Your solution is empowerment.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, CEO, change awareness, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
A Change Practitioner will need to steer, guide, lead and prod for a variety of situations. While human nature can be consistent cultures and processes within organizations are distinct. Which of course is the result of human nature. Intuition, experience and empathy may carry the day for knowing people in general, but to get to the specifics and the “distinct” of one organizations takes an initial list of questions and to-do’s.
-
How do they communicate
-
What are the horizontal connections (if any)
-
Where is leverage the strongest
-
How weak or strong is the PMO
-
What is the history of change
-
What is the understanding of change management
-
At the individual level what are the disconnects in the organization
Turning these bullets into actual questions to individual stakeholders will create a list of helpful and not so helpful in terms of the way the organization exchanges, moves and learns. In fact the last bullet usually reveals the first (but feels too much like a resistance/negative approach to be a start for new conversations). What you hope for as a leader/change agent are clean lines of communication horizontally, vertically and circular; enough breakage of a silo structure that the change work can cross functions; leverage in the right spots as catalysts rather than roadblocks; an effective, aware and capable PMO; as little bad baggage as possible and understanding/willingness on the part of the stakeholders.
You can see how the short list gets long fast and now have some more data on why most organizations need Change Management.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, change management, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
|
|
