|
|
An easy change scenario-
The organization will at some point move a performance system from paper based to online access (say into an SAP module). The money and energy is not there for the technical transfer (and the change that goes with it). There is the ability to address the system itself. There are grumblings from stakeholders about the ties between measures, performance and rating (especially against others in similar but different functions). The icing on the cake is a sudden realization from executives that there is both room and need for “enhancement” (yesterdays blog word for change http://horizontalchange.com/2010/08/the-adult-bad-word/).
The approach is straight forward. The components-
- An understanding of the framework for the future software
- An explanation of what the performance system is for and what it should accomplish
- A deep and broad swath of data, perspective (good and not so) and idea gathering
- Potentially benchmarking of other companies
- A clear end state description of the system in action from the stakeholders perspective
To be able to run through these components well ahead of the software implementation is a dream come true for a change agent. It gives a very real chance to construct (or tweak or reconstruct) a system that feeds the objectives of the business, supports core values and makes it clear what works to be rewarded and what does not. With the right kind of feedback from stakeholders the solution can be the best of the current turned into an efficient and fair system and process.
You, no doubt, see many ways this will not be easy…
Odds are good that functions have fertilized the daisies (http://tinyurl.com/2cgbkpz for my organic change blog post) to the point where cross functional comparisons are apples to oranges. They are most likely attached to their way.
An inherent difficulty with performance rewards is the fact that one pool is divided in some way. Across the board pay raises are not common. In short not everyone can get an “A” no matter how hard they try. In every rating meeting I have attended there is also the edge from one level to the next, say high potential to not. Each of the leaders want their people to make the cut above the edge. In their justifications they often stray from fair comparisons (which can be remedied in the re-tweak of the process and measures).
They key for this type of “easy” change is to understand how the current system is viewed, and reacted to, by the stakeholders and then fashion a structure and process that has measures that will be acceptable. If there is also clarity about the reason for the performance system in the first place (that’s not flippant, it is amazing how much time is spent in this area with negligible effect).
Make it make sense and make it work- Easy Change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change excercise, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
“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
When consultants are “on the beach” (the inside term for not on client engagements) they react completely different from employees who feel close to losing their job. They dig in, retrench and create. Most consultants are itching to have a chance to build collateral, increase their thought leadership and learn. The economic crises has proved fertile ground for just that.
That collateral for you as an executive is the foundation for effective, efficient delivery of business objectives.
Consultants are by nature restless, enjoy a challenge and thrive in the most difficult of situations. Their sweet spot is to have the tools and collateral, the time to think and just the right environment of confusion (and possibly fear). They like to accomplish things that others are too slow, too scared or not qualified to tackle. When they see a clear path with all those parameters they get things done fast.
Every one of those parameters is now lined up. Consultants have had plenty of time to create, think and learn. Now they are hungry for the chance to apply. For you that means a quick start from the backward slide of the last year or so.
Before you begin dreaming of business objectives and end states finding clear, quick paths to success look closer at what the use of those resources means to your organization and your culture. Your employees are likely fearful. They now worry about their jobs and their roles (and don’t expect that to go away for a long time). An energetic consultant with little baggage and a clear focus on goals is a serious threat. The more the numbers tilt in the direction of external resources (some firms were close to 50% even before the economy tanked) the more threat there is to the culture of the organization itself. And while unfounded (IMHO) those employees may think that the externals could actually replace them.
Your warning is
that too much reliance on external resources can weaken the fabric of your organizational culture. To rely on those resources when your culture has already weathered a storm (without the camaraderie of conquering adversity) can potentially effect those initiatives that happen after the first wave of success.
Why not strive for speed and success while at the same time transitioning your employees from fear to action. Pick a consultant (or small firm- you will not get this from the big firms) who understands what needs to be mended, wants to transfer that built up collateral and knowledge and is looking for challenge rather than maximum possible revenue (hint that would be the big firm- in fact just about any with employees). You will pull your employees into the new reality, accomplish and prepare all at the same time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, Value
Companies have hoarded cash. They are lean and trim. The foot is on the throttle; the hand at the gearshift. Fear is about to switch to anticipation. Once the accelerator is pushed and the up shifting begins there will be BIG change.
Are you an executive in the drivers seat?
That little space there between the twitching fingers and the gearshift is the most appropriate place to insert high level change management. That space, from the stirrings I have seen in the last couple of months, is now.
What do you need to consider and act on to jump start the change process?
Readiness
Not my favorite term as you know if you have read previous posts. This time it fits. Because this time you will want to gauge the overall feeling of your culture. Are they ready for tires burning? Or have they been so ground down and made to be scared from the last year or so that you have some executive communicating to do? You want to look at readiness in general not for any specific initiative. And by readiness I mean the capacity to strap in for the ride. If it is not there then some core parts of the change process need to be done well and communicated to the individual level.
Strategy
If it was strong and well communicated throughout the economic turmoil then Kudos. Odds are it was a an exercise in trimming, reducing, stopping and stalling. Not a good foundation for the change process. And not a foundation for trust with new strategy to move forward. Make sure the redo makes sense, communicate and re-communicate with individual stakeholders in mind. This is the spot to build trust, calm the culture and transition from fear to anticipation.
End States
Leverage your strategy into clear, attainable, but innovative end states. Don’t apologize for the trimming, but don’t ignore it either. If the reason you have the cash stockpiles to change is your cost cutting strategy then let the change come from that. And make sure your organization knows you are moving forward because of the previous strategy.
Development
Who did you lose? Who did you keep? How much time and money do you need to now invest to build back competency and capability? You can use the change from first gear on to help with the development (a core ingredient to our approach at Vision to Work- change and develop at the same time).
Resources
Consulting will grow next year. Transitioning from fear to anticipation and action will require intense energy and motivation to get work done. That will come much faster from hungry consultants. Just make sure as the leader with the wallet you pick firms that enjoy and feel ethically that they should be teaching and developing your people for the eventual exit of the consultant (hint small firms to independent- NOT big firms).
Those consulting firms, or individuals who build a team, should be assessing your competency and leadership gaps, temporarily filling them in and guiding you to replacement (or using their peer network to actually find them for you).
You can’t gun the engine just yet. You must turn fear into action. In this environment you have change within change- call it recovery to change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, stakeholders, strategy, 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
How often do you find yourself spending what you consider too much time installing or putting together the things in your life?
I found myself there today with the installation of a garage hoist (really cool to push a button and have your stuff just magically make its way up into the ceiling- nice end state). As a change manager I know a process made of steps to get to an ending should be clear, understandable and maybe even enjoyable. Thanks to some really weak and un-thought out directions I have found myself swearing through the opposite too many times- add today and it is waaaay too many.
Is it up or down? Do the two holes go on the left or the right? This bolt or that bolt? Is there anything I need to know before I start?
As it happened today I installed not one hoist but two.
A little like a second engagement with the same client. And in the same way the parts had been improved (lag screws instead of ridiculous hex head screws- 4” long and bendable like putty) but the process, and the directions, were still faulty.
What does all this have to do with change?
Directions
All change has at some point ,directions. They may be as literal as a guide to keystrokes or as vague as hidden expectations from a leader. Those directions worded (or pictured) and/or delivered poorly can create real obstacles to change. Real unnecessary obstacles. (There were a few times today when I thought, this is just dumb, I should have used cabinets). A little like, “whose dumb idea from corporate was this?”. Don’t let yourself have a good idea with a clear end state and then use a bad map on poor pavement.
So-
- Use pictures, graphs, images when they can really pinpoint something
- Put everything in context to the preceding and the following
- Put time (knowing it is both a deadline and a constraint) on things when you know it is possible
- If you can try out your directions first by all means do so (including those “marching orders”)
- If it is technical in nature please include someone with design sense
- Use space in pictures, for relationships on time lines and when you are presenting/communicating (because there are always directions built in to those interchanges)
- If there is something strange up ahead call it out early (and suggesting someone “read through the directions first” does not count- two reads of a bad explanation do not make clarity)
- Be careful how many bullet points you use- I had to stick that in there- a little like telling a kid No, you only get so many chances for effect
Look at your change process. See it as a journey with a series of steps. Make those steps clear. Be embarrassed when your stakeholders finish with “a pile of parts leftover”.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change failure, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
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
Taken completely out of context (barely) from a post within a LinkedIn group.
Nor did he have the internet, global communications, virtual teams, contracted work groups or the need to constantly keep up with the business environment. What he did have is structure, hierarchy and unwritten rules about participating and unemployment (for not doing so).
As a leader why do I need change management?
You don’t.
If… you have the capacity in your organization to come up with ideas, that lead to vision, that illustrate end states, that tie to the energy, motivation and skill set of those you hired. Oh, and collaboration across function, culture, geography and virtual space, lack of internal politics that slow the fulfillment of goals. Of course you will also need to fully understand the mood and trust within your organization along with what you have for competencies, leadership and capacity.
You could delegate some of this out to the PM, you could pass the responsibility down to your junior leaders, you could partner with HR, you could force feed work in order to get it done. If you did all this passing and pushing where would you be…back in his day.
Think that works?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CEO, change management, Garrett Gitchell
|
|
