|
|
One of the things that you will not likely see on the “70% Change Failure List” is an underlying Us and Them perspective. I see this on almost all engagements, this grouping propensity seems to be one of those “Human Nature” things.
Us = Leadership or the project team or the change management consultants (in those rare cases where there is more than one) or a functional group.
Them = Everyone else or line stakeholders or the Resistors or that other function or a vague competitor (that one might be OK for building camaraderie against a common foe).
What’s wrong with Us and Them viewpoints?
- Command and control
- Exclusion
- Transparency
- Trust
- Responsibility
Command and control
The most common pairing is Leaders and Stakeholders (I almost put “vs.”). Leadership has either set up or gotten used to telling people what to do. Since that command is passed to the next level to implement “people” never has to be an actual person. Stakeholders see the disconnect.
Because of the disconnect everything must be controlled to a different degree than it would have to be if everyone was in this together. The more you control the more a “them” perspective becomes obvious. Soon it will be leaders VS. stakeholders.
Exclusion
This can come with all of our pairs, often not on purpose just in the interest of expediency. Functions exclude other functions. The change team can exclude many (they should know better!). Leaders exclude on purpose to reduce competition. Individuals exclude to retain power.
Exclusion in general is the bane of change.
Exclusion makes things confusing, unclear and can be a first step toward fear and gossip. Change does not go well with gossip and fear.
Transparency
Transparency can kill fear and stifle gossip. The opposite, which is what you get when us and them is woven into your approach, feeds fear. Complete openness is never possible in business. A higher level than exists in most organizations is. Reveal what you can at the right time. The way you reveal information, facts, data and directions can show that everyone is working together toward similar end states.
Because if you don’t you lose trust.
Without trust you will have a hard time getting the necessary work done. Signal a “them” perspective, watch now you will see this EVERYWHERE, and you have eliminated the chance for full trust. If they are them then you, already, do not trust. Why should they?
Responsibility
When there is an us and them perspective responsibility gets passed from one group to the next, or one person to the next. Often the us group is doing the thinking and the planning while the them group is supposed to just listen to orders and then work their you-know-what’s off.
This creates a “you-think-you-know-everything” view. If separation exists between stakeholder and some other group it will feel condescending to those tasked with the work.
If the shelves aren’t stocked or the cash registers aren’t manned, or the data is not entered or the code is not written or the customer is not cared for, there is no business and so there will be no change. Those most responsible, really, are the line stakeholders- they are most often the “them”.
It is very easy to fall into an Us and Them perspective. Working teams do that with stakeholders, leaders do it with “followers” and change practitioners do it with those they are supposed to be working with. Watch yourself and look closely at your model. Do you have us and them embedded to the point where it may feel like us VS. them to some?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, engagement, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
- Be very clear before you start the change journey of the responsibilities of leadership- you will likely have an owner and an implementer. Partner together and pass that type of relationship down the chain. Change fails when no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
- If you are the leader be careful of the you and them perspective- stakeholders see right through a leader who is not personally connected to the change.
- Value expertise- use it, call it out and connect the relationship of talent to successful change. But don’t fake it (see point two).
- Be clear about the differences between project management and change management- PM accomplishes tasks and manages risk, CM works to connect the work of people to end states. Don’t put big picture people on the little stuff and don’t throw the big picture stuff at those managing risk.
- Double your time and dollar estimates- I mean that figuratively (although if you want to take it literally and act on that you might have some pretty successful change- by all measures). Don’t fall prey to any hucksters out there who promises to speed your time to change. It might work for the first round, but the mess will be ugly the second time.
- Change can be, and is when it is thought out and makes sense, positive- be careful of negative, resistance fighting, risk managing approaches to change. There may be times when you have to put the hammer down… that’s different.
- Enjoy the journey- you are, after all, asking that of others.
Leadership, perspective, expertise, CM and PM partnership, time, money, positive and negative must all be looked at before change can begin. Address these seven pointers and you will have a good start toward a successful change effort.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change excercise, change management strategy, Executive, organizational change, PMO, vision to work
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
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
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
“Start, join and win campaigns for change.” Change.org slogan.
This is just awesome.
When money, power, prestige and status quo carry more weight than the individual there has to be a balance somehow. When the balance is achieved (or at least more fair) then it actually becomes easier for leaders (the good moral ones that want many to benefit from gain) to effect change. In corporate environments grass roots, organic efforts that support leadership fair much better and are more sustainable than the few-control-the-power kind of change (attempts).
Business is business and for one group to get ahead another will likely feel the effect. The ability to petition leadership (in the case of Change.org it is social, there are organic petitioning options in organizations too [leveraging the conduit between external consultant and senior leader to name an easy one]) gives each group a chance to leapfrog over another.
Not all rosy though…
Since people will inherently disagree, if you put enough of them together, there can be a lot of competing petitions. Best example is the initiative process in California (like proposition 13 which resulted in one neighbor paying in taxes in a year what another pays in a month).
This year may well be the year of the individual as part of a group (versus the everyone is in this for themselves attitude we have lived with for awhile). Collective efforts should not just be reserved for social and political issues. Collaboration (with supporting strong leadership and decision making) is powerful and profitable.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Change Strategy, horizontal change management, petition for change, political change, social change
The company that makes Twinkies has announced it is in bankruptcy proceedings (again).
Sometimes change is sad.
Really what would the world be like without Twinkie’s to snack on?
Then again… when was the last time you actually ate a Twinkie?
This is a great example of something that we want to hold on to because, well, it is important. Twinkies represent a softer, smoother, sweet past (for me they tie to childhood with no worries- the thought of what a Twinkie might do to my system now is worrisome). Think about it though. If no one buys Twinkies (or HO HO’s or those nasty fruit pie things from Hostess- or white bread or that matter) then what is the point of making them?
Corporate change often has elements like this. Customizations and adaptations made in the past that no one uses yet no one will get rid of (even when they are shown to be expensive and have alternatives).
And look at the comments for my link. Change tends to bring out the nastiness in people. Blaming unions for the demise of the Twinkie? Really? Twinkie’s have no competition that I know of. A Twinkie is part of a monopoly in a way. You could charge whatever you want (you know like cable). Problem is Twinkies are inherently unhealthy. So people will not buy them. No sales equals no viability.
Therein might be the lesson: Is your change viable? Or is it just a Twinkie scenario?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture
I snicker a little about this title.
It is good I left the date out- just in case it turns out NEXT year is the year of the Change Agent (at least we know it was not last year).
“The Year of the Change Agent” a post from David Armano gets the first change topic for 2012 spinning from blog to blog, discussion to discussion.
His points:
Seeds of change come from thoughts, behaviors, perception and outcome. Yes.
Why this year is the Year of the Change Agent
- Everyone is restless (in a good way)
- Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
- Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
- Change Management has left its infancy
- Positive will rule this year
Everyone is restless (in a good way)
Fear (and fear mongering), pining for the past (that never actually happened) and living in a strictly tactical short term world will either kill you or make you strong. For this year I am predicting strong. Bouncing off of negative toward strength tends to make you a little edgy. That becomes urgency at some point- the GOOD kind of urgency that invites and stimulates participation. Get some make sense change going (which gives you permission to call yourself a Change Agent) and you are likely to jump ahead of your competitors.
Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
Change ain’t cheap.
Luckily companies have hoarded cash over the last couple of years. Some of that will get released this year. Things will change as a result. And someone will be the agent for that.
Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
When you park senior externals and thought leaders in an environment where hustling work likely makes no sense (like a lot of the last two years, unless you downgraded your resume and profile for junior roles) they LEARN. They read, they write, they look at competitors, they draw on every napkin they can find and then they share- first with each other and eventually with clients and customers. This year is that year of sharing.
I can feel the gates opening with discussions that bounce from one place to another. I can see it in thoughtful blog posts (it is nice to not be rushed when writing). I hear it in the way senior consultants frame their explanations.
Some thinking and learning has been happening.
Change Management has left its infancy
I said to a model-oriented-follow-the-steps-exactly consultant the other day that past models and approaches were juvenile and current thought leaders are pulling Change Management into adulthood. The exchange did not go well. Those who have clung to CM status quo (that just seems so weird, how can you be a change agents if you hold onto the past?) are retiring. Maybe not this year, but their numbers are dwindling. Hopefully the young does and bucks keep the good stuff from the past as Change Agents.
Positive will rule this year
Enough of the negative.
Positive people get picked on (been there, live there), but have you noticed they have a lot of friends? Others reach out to them, connect with them, want to partner with them.
What if we just got every third person to be more positive?
Think of the change.
This year is the year of the Change Agent because nobody likes NO change. And certainly everyone dislikes change that goes backwards. We have had a lot of the no change and a good degree of the backward kind (both meanings intended). Now it is time for some people to carry the flag as Agents of Change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, vision to work
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
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
