|
|
I have seen this before, but on a recent engagement it was painfully obvious. Big change has an underlying assumption of mini-ownership of process, tasks and work effort.
Here is how the process usually plays out:
- A “sponsor” is picked either before the business case is built or after (usually from the initial team in that case).
- The sponsor is expected to reach out into functions for leadership.
- Those leaders with find, pick, nominate or coerce an initial team of “champions”.
- Those champions will be the in-person deliverers of work, task and message
- Finally the end stakeholders (“line” in some cases) will own the change and make it happen.
I have inserted a few quotation marks which means there are problems…
Sponsor ownership
The sponsor is not the owner. To have them own the change is a problem. They will not have the same level of respect as the true owner (the person responsible for the budget of the change- yes it is always one person). While likely still a high level senior leader they will not have the breadth of reach that the owner does (nor the level of influence). That can make big change tough. Big change does not work well when permission must be granted, over and over again. If you have to ask permission you do not own.
The sponsor must have a mini level of ownership, compared to the owner. Without the owner reinforcing that change will run into problems, up to and including failure.
Passing everything quickly to a sponsor by virtue of your status quo approach, passing the buck or just naiveté is a mini-ownership problem first step.
Mid level leadership
Which typically gets repeated with a pass to mid level leadership (usually Directors within functions). Mid level leadership most definitely owns the translation of the idea into work. They own an important messaging component. But if they are receiving a second pass of the baton (with no lead given from the first runner) they are starting off with an ownership/leadership disadvantage.
In my experience some of these leaders ought to be given MORE ownership because they get it, their stakeholders know and see that and things will happen if they do not have to ask permission (or do things different than the previous baton passers). There are as many leaders, in my experience, at this level, that should not be given any more ownership than is needed to make a connection to their stakeholders.
Best quote from one of these people in my career, “Having been around here for 30 years I ought to know how things are done.” Ha. And having been around here for 30 days (or maybe 30 minutes) I can tell you how things SHOULD not be done anymore…
Champions
These are the people itching to further their career. Give them anything to own and they will take it. Whether or not the first person to coin this term did this on purpose I’m not sure, but it would have been a good move if you thought change was about urgency and energy. The people who get the title champion have both. And they can often create both in others.
Or not.
You can’t just say someone is a champion of anything. Think sports. The equivalent corporate- champion-crowning is the 5 year old soccer team where EVERYONE gets a trophy, because they are ALL champions.
If you have a scenario where the owner gets it and is present, mid level leaders can have the end state make sense from their functional perspective (and that translates well into participation in a bigger picture effort) then champions are just awesome to have- especially the ones who can own and lead to pull in the last level of stakeholder.
End stakeholders
Who are ultimately the most important for change. They are the ones who will be doing something different- likely over and over and over (like typing). They must be able to own the connection of work to end state. What they do must be significant in some way. And the rewards for participation, in addition to the knowledge of connection, must be real.
There is a lot of buzz about “ownership of change” this year. It gets quotes because stakeholder ownership is a very contrived term. There are just too many times when the level of ownership on the line, at the and, where the hands on work happens, cannot be much. Looking at the organization from that vantage point I can see how hard it would be to feel ownership to anything. Roll out change as a passage of mini-ownership through multiple layers and you will likely have push back at the end.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management strategy, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
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
Tactics definition: any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success. Dictionary.com
Following these tips will DEFINITLY give you an advantage. Your competitors are not paying attention to this:
- Decrease the distance between leaders and individual stakeholders
- Base steps toward the end state on expertise
- Use change to build competencies
- Adapt your PM system to reflect the end state
- Spend more time talking and less time writing things down
Leadership distance
Any procedure, system or approach that connects stakeholders more directly with leadership will give you an advantage. A regular update from executives in a newsletter or on the project website is the easiest, lowest level tactic. The same regularity in person, or at least with an interactive virtual session is second. Most effective is presence, in person, throughout the initiative in a variety of places for a variety of reasons (connecting the change to the end state and operations).
Expertise
Think expertise for all of the steps of your plan.
Each task in a plan requires a person with skill. Leverage, build and acknowledge both skill and the use of skill (competency) in any way you can.
Competencies
Same as expertise, but the extension- knowing and using capability and capacity. Competencies, and the individuals that carry them, need to be tactically spread onto the change management chessboard. Since business is ultimately a competition you may need tactical moves to protect lack of competency. Enter external consultants for helping you figure that out and contractors to temporarily add missing competencies.
Performance Management
Your performance management system is the record of how well you are doing with tactics. Each suggestions/goal/reward connects with an overall strategy. Those little tactical pieces, developed and accomplished by individuals, should be recorded, monitored and adjusted through the PM system.
Look in hindsight back when you finish change. Did your PM roadmaps build to the end state or just reinforce a subjective status quo?
Dialogue/Communication
Tactical Change Management relies heavily on templates and deliverables (and staying parked in a cubicle filling them out). Change tactics (whether with that form of CM or as part of a broader strategy) should focus on spending the right amount of time in person connecting, explaining end states to and guiding stakeholders. You are looking to address all of the learning styles and to have people hear, see, read, and, in a perfect world, feel and touch your end state, your plan and the steps to get there.
Gaining advantage with change and successfully getting to end states requires a long series of tactical moves, determined through a strong strategic plan with an early and throughout change process. Decreasing the distance between leaders and stakeholders; using expertise; building competencies; keeping track of and rewarding those skills and communicating in multiple ways as close to in person as possible will give you advantage and speed your change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, 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
“Questions to ask for Horizontal Change Management Strategy” was a search to our site. Intriguing it is, and the seed for multiple blog posts.
- What is the organizations change history?
- How “visible” is the CEO?
- What does your performance management system measure?
- What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
- To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
What is the organizations change history?
History is the foundation for change.
In the positive sense it is a series of successes and mistakes that made the organization profitable and successful. Less positive it is a pattern, or set of patterns, that does not work for the future. A horizontal change strategy must be malleable. If that is not in the organizations history lots of questions will have to turn into dialogue and plans to change patterns.
A subset question here would be, “What is your (client) change history?”. How this client (I am assuming for this post that the client is the owner of the change) has dealt with change on their own and with this company is an absolutely crucial element for horizontal change.
How “visible” is the CEO?
How visible in terms of people actually seeing them or reading things from them and visibility connected to work efforts. Is this a founder CEO who has his/her mitts on everything that happens in the organization? Is this a new CEO? Is this a CEO that came from an acquiring company (that now has the grand vision of togetherness and cross functional collaboration)?
The visibility of the CEO may have to adapt as part of the horizontal change strategy. The range will be from more visibility less hands on to more hands on less visibility depending on where the organization is in its history and how this CEO fits into that picture (and of course what the end state might look like).
What does your performance management system measure?
The first question is really, “Do you have a performance management system?”. The answer is always yes which is too bad.
Do you measure deliverables? Do you measure short term (not good for horizontal strategy- not good for any strategy really)? Do you measure individually? Are your measures subjective? Do you measure to retain or cull?
Your PM system is the most crucial element for horizontal change. Not addressing and revamping it is almost a no-go for horizontal alignment.
What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
Yes you have an org. chart even if it is not printed or posted.
You have the formal version and you have the informal version(s). If you are lucky the informal is more horizontal than you expected. I often find a lot of organic bartering and exchange in the middle of those informal charts.
The significance of these two types of people maps is important to horizontal change.
Are you calling our your silo-ed nature with the placement of the boxes? Is there anything in that chart that shows cross collaborative connections?
Don’t think that you have to somehow switch to a lovely flat line of boxes because everyone is going to work together in a matrix (the matrix does not exist- anywhere except in a garage with a startup and even that is short lived to the point where the garage door must open). Functions are IMPORTANT. It is within the functional structure that talent, competency and skill shine- especially at the individual level.
You can keep a functional hierarchy with horizontal strategy. It just takes some crafting and messaging to have that work effectively.
To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
See the second question. Go back to the first. Has the middle of your company taken on a life of its own? Are things scaling up? (scaling up is the process of getting permission from leaders through “executive presentations”- lots of patterns, most detrimental, follow this adaptation by middle managers).
Devolved in this question will likely raise feathers (not with the owner client but with those middle managers). When an organization has a lot of organic change it is a signal. It is also a light shining on the ways in which people are working around the status quo. Some of those ways will be beneficial for your horizontal change strategy, some will not. All of them will be revealing.
There are many many more questions. With consultants the questions never end.
In order to design a horizontal strategy that will actually work, questions must dig into root causes of problems and start a pattern of asking why. Why questions are a specific kind of question to elicit perspective, reasoning and feedback. They also help pull out actual fact versus subjective opinion. Many of the questions will have to do with history, the owner of the change, the CEO and individuals working to accomplish.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, Change Strategy, corporate change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
Organizations are beginning to create corporate entities (a 2011 trend) that help to tie together multiple initiatives, programs and projects (many of which go beyond just operational efforts). Progress is in its nascency. This is the emergence of something good for Change Management (and likely even more work for senior practitioners since this is usually done as a grassroots effort and tends to run into its own problems).
This is creating different types of change management roles with different placement spots in the organization and a need for different sets of skills.
The new roles:
- Strategic Change Management
- Tactical Change Management
- Implementary Change Management
- Adoptive (or Supportive or Sustaining) Change Management
Strategic Change Management
This is a high level, both in the organization and for consultant experience and standing, long term-broad view role. Strategic change management deals with the largest, longest term initiatives. This is the kind of role where a consultant is genuinely given permission to reveal root causes for the organizations difficulties. This person should be in the conversations with executives that occur immediately after ideas (ideally the consultant is involved in actual strategy sessions where the ideas appear).
To serve this role well the consultant absolutely should be external. They need 10+ years of experiences in all of our roles. The ability to see things from all angles to understand strategy, implementation, business and people equally well is their competency set. It doesn’t hurt if they also bring to the table training, communication and design (both org. and graphic) knowledge and expertise.
This is the role that would design a high level organization wide change entity. This is true Corporate Change Management.
Tactical Change Management
This is the change management role most people think of when they define a CM role.
Their work is layered over project management. They make the translation from strategy to implementation. There can be multiple CM’s in the organization that represent different areas (internal functions, specific projects etc.).
It is in this role that many senior consultants (because strategic change management is not yet understood and/or accepted) find themselves stuck. Failure that they might see in their change efforts is typically caused by lack of executive connection to the change translation (or even the change itself).
Tactical change management while it should not be, is still a heavy deliverable role. Your hands “get dirty” when you do this work- lots of assessments, communications, training design and meetings (hopefully not consistent written reports although that often happens).
I am beginning to see the absolute necessity for good tactical change management practitioners. It is here that internal CM’s can shine. Even more so if they are supported by the external strategic role.
Implementary Change Management
These are the leaders within the organization that make things happen. They are the organizers, the people working around the globe to translate into sales, action, behavior change and participation at the user level. They are often the testers, the askers, the shoulders-to-cry-on and the mentors for all of the different forms change takes.
This is definitely an internal role- that should be given visibility and responsibility.
Adoptive (or Supportive or Sustaining) Change Management
This also is a new role appearing.
This is the person who stays on after the change hits the milestone called “adoption” or “transformation”. They help to keep stakeholders from falling back to previous patterns, status quo and behaviors. They understand that sustainability has a lot to do with follow through close to the user. Functional executives are crucial partners for this person.
This can be internal or external, there are benefits for both. An internal will likely have a closer connection to the stakeholders and can interpret from the organizations perspective (hopefully the new one created as a result of the change). An external can be invaluable for feeding information back to the strategic CM for consideration moving to the future on other initiatives.
New roles are appearing for change management thanks to some failures of old approaches, new perspectives, better understanding and a few successful organic efforts here and there. Those roles are strategic, tactical, implementary and supportive. Yes, sometimes they are still wrapped up into one role/one person.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management strategy, External Consultant, Insights, vision to work
A recent McKinsey article, “Finding the Right Place to Change” illustrates a well thought out approach to directing efforts to the place in the organization that will adapt for the end state (of course not the way the authors worded it). What is interesting is that the approach focuses on finding the spot (people) where change will be the greatest and directing extra efforts there. That gets points on its own.
In the particular case they mentioned they switched from “communication” and “road shows” (in quotes because both look good on paper but tend to come across as sales pitches) to training and competency development. Again excellent stand alone.
Admittedly it is hard to pull the whole thought process out of one article, but there does not seem to have been a real leadership component to this change. As is typical it took an organic approach. A “starting in the middle” (the authors words) tactical perspective right after an organizational redesign that eliminated a middle layer of supervision and leadership.
With that restructure change blocking was not there anymore (or eliminated, out of the way, non-existent). The connection between senior leaders and line stakeholders should then have been an easy exercise (to set up anyway, getting it to work is a different exercise). Yet there is little (actually no) mention in the article of executive ownership, engagement and participation.
So even a big, successful firm like a McKinsey caters to leadership deferral…
(There is certainly revenue there).
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change excercise, leadership
The Perfect client does not exist.
Because of what it takes to rise in organizations (performance measures, short term perspectives, shareholders, board of directors with shareholder perspectives) this may be impossible.If there was that client an early exchange might look something like this:
This is an important change for the whole organization. I want to make sure I understand it and can explain it to stakeholders. Can you help me with that?
Yes the consultant would answer while smiling.
You are a stakeholder just like the rest. The rest need to see and feel your connection to the change, to its effects and to its benefits.
I can draw out that explanation with questions that you will get from no one else- partly because I am not hesitant to ask tough questions and no one else will see the tie between you, the change and effort by stakeholders.
Can you do the same thing with other leaders?
The same thing but different yes.
Each leader is seen in a different way. Each leader represents something unique to stakeholders. That uniqueness must also be connected to the change. Each one of those leaders must have their own explanation and their own voice (which will come out with a “perfected” explanation).
We cascade everything through our organization. Should we stick with that or try something different?
The second.
Cascading, especially for a change initiative, puts too much pressure on middle level leaders who do not have the competencies to lead change. It also quickly passes the buck for those leaders you wanted to have connected to this change. Soon everyone is doing things they are not officially responsible for while those who should be doing it flounder.
What about responsibility? Is that important?
Yes and I am glad you used responsibility instead of accountability.
Responsibility means people are “owning” the change. It likely means they understand their connection to the organization tied to the change. If they see that they will probably be able to understand stakeholder perspectives. They also will not be uncomfortable with accountability.
Should we have accountability then?
You should but not usually on an individual level.
That is what you do operationally. Change that approach to one where teams are accountable. That accountability, when you are working with change, is better at the team level. Have them be accountable to each other. At the project level make them accountable for hand offs, help them understand their importance to those before them and after them in the timeline.
What is the most important thing you can tell me before this change starts?
Budget for a high level external change management consultant now.
They should be there from the very first idea for the change.
If they do not get leaders instantly involved in dialogue, communication and interaction with early elements of the change then get a different one.
Change fails because of lack of leadership participation and understanding of change. Stakeholders see right through that deference or inability to lead (the second may bring on the other- there are a lot of weak leaders out there).
The Most Important Thing to keep in mind is that change works when it is owned by stakeholders. They understand it. They share that understanding with leaders. They want to see it happen because it Makes Sense.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, CEO, Change Design, change failure, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, resistance to change, stakeholders, strategy, vision to work
To start a week long team meeting with a client we had categories of things to plan spread over a whiteboard. It became a doodle pad and a big giant area to cover. I was fascinated by the dance of filling out information. One by one ideas were put in the right place, things were expanded on, sentences were edited and languaging was clarified.
It could not have turned out better if it had been planned. It could not have turned out better facilitated. It was truly organic.
Now I am thinking… why not do that on purpose knowing how well the process plays out. A Whiteboard for Change.
Ingredients for the Whiteboard for Change
Time-
because it is the ability to dialogue, add in, expand and question that got the good stuff on the board.
Different expertise-
this mix of people happened to be technical, change management, leaders, operations, finance and project managers.
The sense that nothing is permanent-
the board did get erased and redone in spots for clarification (yet no one erased without consensus, which was cool).
A sense of permanence-
It was there the next morning, to question and to reaffirm.
Big space-
because big picture needs room and visuals have more effect when they are big.
Small text-
the level of detail (this is fascinating) was reflected in the size of the written font (the smaller the more detail).
Color-
once a color got used it acquired a meaning (typical things like red to stand out, heavy black to emphasize and lots of blue for comfort).
Erasure-
something as good as this has to have closure, so the board was scrubbed clean on Friday (after the cell phones clicked pictures, of course).
A blank whiteboard a week with your team, some color and an open but focused perspective are your ingredients for this effective exercise.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Change Design, change excercise, Communication, excercise
- Cascading Communication
- Testing of Technology
- The Guiding of Socialization
- Risk Management
Cascading Communication
Is the process of releasing a communication and letting certain stakeholders decide how to distribute that information. They can repurpose it, use it in its entirety or recreate the same message in their own words. On the surface this seems to make sense (and it typical of both organizations and, what I would consider old-fashioned practitioners). It gives different levels some reasonable control over their messaging, it puts a voice on communication that is closer to the stakeholders reporting to the “screener person” and it takes some burden off of the workload of the core change/project team.
Why is it so common? And why is this not questioned? Common and unquestionably the way to do things is a big red flag for me. That is one definition of status quo.
It is common because it is a control method. It is accepted because it does not rock the boat.
Testing of Technology
The introduction of technology for change, or change that is a technology improvement always has a level of access control built into the project plan. It has to in order to design, work out bugs, test and work out bugs again. There is often an overlap with change management because the testing works better with expertise that lies deep in the organization. This means that the end user may be part of the change management and communication loop early on.
They have friends, friends talk (as they should).
The Guiding of Socialization
Think now of the first two categories- cascading communications as power control and the testing process as security control. How tight or loose those controls are determines the level and timing of socialization. That can be haphazard when change management planning is missing and the initiative is project and task focused. Or it can be a smooth process of transparency with the right kind of controls that make sense to all.
Change management efforts are the strongest when information is socialized first and then announced formally closely thereafter.
Risk Management
Not planning for and monitoring access, socialization being one version, always increases risk. An untested technology released to a large segment of the population to “play around with” can create a disaster of negativity. Socializing things early on too far out into the organization (out being the CM perspective- down that of the middle level leaders) can create confusion and cause the initiative to spiral out of control.
Change management consultants (especially external ones) should try to be the keeper of the keys when it comes to access. The consultant obviously does not make the ultimate decision about who sees and touches when, but they need to influence. It is surprising how little thought goes into the people aspect of access and availability.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change management consultant, engagement
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
