|
|
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given us an up to date view of change management- “Leaders of Change- Companies prepare for a stronger future”.
A little background:
The study was authored by Paul Kielstra. It survey 288 executives, 42 % C-level or above from North America (44%), Western Europe (40%) and Latin America (16%). 75% of respondents came from organizations with revenue of US$1bn or above. A nice mix to give us some change statistics.
Their introduction:
“Although companies remain, as always, cost conscious, they are putting much more emphasis on growing market share and preparing for the future.
Similarly, organisations are increasingly devoting their attention to the sales and marketing functions.
This further reflects the shift in emphasis towards growth and the future and away from cost cutting.
Apparently, executives are leaving the preoccupations of surviving the downturn behind.
Yet companies are still, all too often, unable to execute change. The responsibility inevitably resides
with their leaders.
Excellent! Statistics to back up my comments for the last six months or so.
Driving forces for change:
Cost pressures topped the list averaging 50% with customer demand, regulation and market share following. Growth types of change- mergers, market opportunity and reducing complexity (nimble is crucial for fast change) were significantly lower percentages. The good news is that last years study topped 66% for cost reduction- that is improvement in the right direction.
An interesting note here- Wouldn’t “reducing complexity”, not cost cutting but creating nimbleness, help for any change? Adding a Corporate Change Management entity would fall in that category. What better time than now to do that to be ready for next year’s study that has growth initiatives topping the charts…
Which area of the corporation is getting the change initiatives?
Sales wins with 41% followed by Supply chain/Procurement (26%), IT (24%) and Finance (20%). HR, Customer Service and others fall farther down the list. Sales and marketing, that would be a first step toward growth- a good sign. Of course I am not happy to see procurement so high on the list- that will turn out to have been a problem when everyone switches to growth mode (the environment as a result is not conducive to external input that can help fuel the right growth).
The “company as a whole”, Asset optimization and “Senior management” barely make the chart. No investment in infrastructure or people. That is a trend that will need to change for growth and prosperity that filters throughout the organization.
Change in Resource Focus:
There is a trend in this study toward altered focus on resource spending. Forty seven percent of the respondents have environments where change focus was either increased or greatly increased. A VERY significant set of number, good ones, is the measure of executive participation with important change. Sixty three percent of the respondents fell in the increased or greatly increased categories.
Did 37% of the executives in the polled organizations think the status quo was doing just fine? Or, in fairness, maybe they were in no position to change anything.
Success?
So were these change initiatives successful (keeping in mind we are asking what might be the foxes in the hen house…)?
73% think that at least half of their change was successful. So much for the bandied about 70% failure rate.
Bottleneck Employees
Who is responsible for the 27% failure (and the extra percentage built into the 1/2, 3/4 responses)?
Those poor middle managers always taking the heat for everything. I admit I am a little guilty as charged for jumping on that band wagon. At times the criticism is warranted, but these numbers look like it is piled on- especially since only five percent of the respondents were willing to take the heat. Humility, refreshing, I want them for clients.
Cause of Failure
This is always revealing and this survey did not disappoint.
Lack of clearly defined milestones and objectives “won” this one easily (35% C-suite and 28% non C-suite, but still in the senior leader category). Insufficient funding, poor communication and employee resistance (the light in the tunnel) were far behind.
First look at the chart and think about who the survey respondents were. It looks as if the C-suite is pointing fingers at middle management again. What if we gave the same survey to those same senior managers, or better yet the other stakeholders? Think the numbers would tweak a little? This chart illustrates the reason why we have change management in the first place. And the questions play into the framing.
Thanks to the framing of the survey (science can be manipulated) there are no questions about descriptions of end states. Or a nice question about the presence of the owner. I am guessing these respondents think “senior management” are the implementers (not them). And insufficient funding only gets 3 and 7 percent in a nasty down economy. I find that almost impossible to believe.
But in all fairness this is good stuff. It is the right mix for the survey. It is owners answering the questions. The questions are revealing as are the answers (the top line above reveals a project management focus toward change, even at the highest levels).
This study from the Economist givess timely statistics for change. Here is to hoping the percentages sweep in favor of growth and large scale transformation for the next version.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change failure, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, organizational change, statistics, vision to work
It has been an interesting couple of years for change management- quite the contrast to 8 – 10 years ago. Consulting, to some extent, is dead, replaced by the strange wave that followed the Microsoft case. (Treat people like employees and you have to give them benefits and consideration for effort- so now we have contracting scenarios that are an arms length worst case scenario, low rates and no benefits and still treated like an employee).
Things go in cycles (this one a little too long for just one career). What will happen is demand will pick up, corporate money will free up and suddenly consulting will return, along with respectable rates (if the consultants are smart enough to raise their rates together).
What is ironic is that all that money locked up in corporate accounts when freed up will land in the worst environment for cost savings. If it had been spent in the last couple of years to move change and shore up structure a lot of companies would be ready (and already have those consultants in place with some loyalty). This is not hindsight it is lack of foresight and strategic planning.
Those who underpaid (I could give you the list of firms in the Bay Area considered chintzy and last resorts for clients….) will find that no one is interested in working with them even if the rates go up. Those firms already have revolving doors (I was contacted 13 times for the same role over a two year period and I know for a fact they went through at least three consultants).
The more firms are stripped of their talent through cost savings the more valuable senior consultants will become.
I see corrections in the future. If you are a senior leader I would say now is the time to get a head start- grab a senior consultant while you can- but do not think about it too long, that could get expensive.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision
There is a cycle of give and take, supply and demand, within change management that is rarely addressed and often missed. I think it starts with underlying assumptions about what a leader is and what a worker does. It mirrors, in ways, the ongoing grand argument in US politics about “job creators”. What drives the economy demand or capital? Consumers or Business Owners? Do things “trickle down” or filter up (or rise up) because of energetic demand?
I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur (founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007)
Our change parallel:
The “job creators” for change are the owners (interesting it could be the very same people in both examples…). Demand is the energy of the stakeholders (and willingness, and perspective). By themselves through the power of their role leaders will not make change happen- they are not change accomplishers.
What will lead to the accomplishment of change is a feedback loop between those who will do the hands on work and those who envision the change. The more connection there is between stakeholders and their work to leaders and their vision the smoother goes the realization of change.
Back to our comparison:
“Trickle down” when it comes to change has been a complete failure. High paid leader (the “rich” person for this version of the analogy) gets grand idea, passes it off to the next level and waits for the spoils to spread through the organization. I can tell you from my experience whatever is supposed to have trickled down is considerably spoiled by the time it gets to the end stakeholder.
I will admit organic change has not done much better- arguably “trickle up”.
What does work is the virtuous cycle of clarity, explanation, application and energy that comes with leaders understanding demand, in the change context, and doing what they can to feed and encourage that energy and focus.
Leaders, owners of change, understand that you are not change creators- facilitators, messengers, inspirerors maybe, but not creators/accomplishers. Pay attention to that virtuous cycle that comes when stakeholders understand change, can apply it to themselves in some way and can place themselves in context with the work and the end state.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, job creators, leader, stakeholders, trickle down, trickle up, vision to work
I got contacted by a third party today and their first question was, “do you have experience with change strategy?”.
Wow the Curse of Experience has broken!
Since 2008 experience with high and broad change has not played well to clients.There has been so much tightening and so much farming out through third parties that everything has been crunched down to tactics. Tactical change without strategy is not pretty- a lot of the change of the last three years has followed that pattern.
The curse of experience is worth thinking about because it will return. You are cursed, at times, if you are experienced because you will see beyond the parameters of the current change (and role if this is contracting). That is not comfortable for a client who has clear edges to their control.
You can be a curse as a consultant if you are all ideas and no urgency.
You are cursed in crunch environments if you feel, as you should if you are experienced, that the client owns the change you are just helping drive. Clients often, especially mid level implementers, need externals to do a lot of the work. Hence the movement toward third parties and contracting (the client feels in those situations they can tell the contracted person what to do, like an employee).
Strategy dissipates when there is no growth. Consultants and clients are forced into tactical approaches to change in non growth environments. Experience is too expensive.
And there is the spell that has been cast that makes buyers think that tactics are a lot of work and strategy is not. One is with the hands and one with the head. Both take effort.
But here is the benefit we all get from our three year experience curse- those senior consultants are now well versed in tactics. Strategy will always convert to tactics (tactics can exist without strategy… for awhile). So now we have senior, experienced consultants with three years of intense tactics under their belts.
Senior leaders, now might be the time to ask strategic questions and then ask for the translation to tactics. It is worth testing each candidate for a senior role. The curse may have mesmerized them.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, External Consultant, strategy, tactics
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
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
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
