|
|
Job boards and portals (Dice, Indeed, Simply Hired, Linkedin etc.) offer a window into upcoming corporate moves, changes in the contracting world and even a glimpse at consulting itself. Peek at them consistently enough and you can tell who is installing, who is merging and who is transforming. Best of all you can see how they view those changes. You can also see how the third parties are fairing and where the supply and demand curve is moving.
Here are few snippets from one day:
“4 or more years of organizational change management design experience (within project consulting)”
The year number is one way to differentiate new against mid level and senior. Four or less is junior, 4-8 mid and 8-10 and above senior. From a consulting perspective I would say the numbers are pretty arbitrary (HR likes to give everyone divisions and procurement likes to dictate rates hence a subjective scale).
“(within project consulting)” is nice. It might show they understand the difference between tactical and strategic change management- this one is tactical. Design for this type of role always seems like a strange word to use. Tacticians do not really design anything they usually follow some dictated set of directions…
“Change Management Analyst”
This usually shows the organization wants as little outside influence as possible. Just analyze for us, we will take it from there. Analyst is also a way to knock down rates. In those cases they are hoping they can get the practitioner skill set with an analyst cost. This role also tends to be one that must follow a set of directions. The less subjective the better from this type of clients perspective. (Good luck with objective analysis when it comes to people).
With my client
(likely a requisition)
This one comes up a lot and is, I think, funny. With “my client” really means is a requisition and this firm happens to get the blanket announcement for a role. I know this because I personally get contacted by all of them the day the requisition is posted. NONE of them know who the client is or much about the role, but they insist it is their client. Or maybe they are just on the mailing list…
I tease here and think it is funny, in that uncomfortable laughter sort of way, because just 5 or 6 years ago the buyer REALLY was a client- as in they can call you on your cell phone anytime because they know and trust you. HR, procurement and the Microsoft case, along with a nasty cost cutting environment, have put multiple walls between client and deliverer/consultant.
At least two (2) years’ experience using course accelerator tools (e.g., Captivate, Articulate, UPK)
Apparently these tools are accelerators compared to the early training tools Authorware and Director. Do they mean acceleration of the development of the training? Or accelerated learning (which is an oxymoron)? One of the three definitely speeds up development and it shows in the quality of the deliverable (as in poor).
Some more tidbits:
I have already had 5 instances this year where a third party contacted me for a role (obvious hornets nest judging by the expectations and the matching rate- scary client and likely scary change) and I gave them a rate 40% higher. There are two reasons for consultants quoting higher rates, to NOT get the role and to signal to clients (and likely the third parties) that their rate is not marketable. What happened with each of those 5? They came back at my rate. Third party skimming too much? Client understanding the recent change in the supply and demand curve? Both?
Posted rates have jumped up at least 10% this month.
Rates are being posted. That likely means good consultants are balking.
In the “what rate do you charge dance” (consultants never give the first number) clients and third parties are willingly taking the first stab (and it is a higher start than last year).
Both clients and third parties are telling me things have changed and they can’t even get senior consultants to talk to them without an up front number much higher than it has been the last three years.
Recruiters are also telling me the cookie cutter practitioners with their shiny certifications are not making the grade. That coupled with the fact that we are moving into a strategic environment rather than rote tactics is good for genuine experience and higher degrees.
Just consulting stuff I thought might be interesting.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees
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
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
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
Trusted advisor explored one part of the equation.
Trust takes at least two people.
The trust summary for change management consulting is not complete without exploring the role of Trusted Partner.
First disclosure: I feel like I have had some harsh critique of leadership and leaders lately. The economy and the selfish patterns in society the last 15+ years have bred these problems. I honestly think people are inherently good and can be trusted. Environments that make it easy to be selfish and greedy quickly wear down the potential for trust.
Trusted Partner
A trusted partner must understand that business works when individuals have a chance to use their talent and skills; individuals enjoy work when business leverages their capability for gain (which creates profit for all). Change is a people/business partnership. Too much emphasis on either side of this pairing will erode trust.
When I am evaluating clients my list of trust includes:
- Their visibility in the organization
- Their track record
- Their demeanor
- Their spot on the org. chart
Their visibility in the organization
What does the potential partner think those in the organization see and say about them? If what I hear from stakeholders matches closely with what the leader says trust is likely.
Do they like to take charge and get credit for it? Do they transfer that perspective to the management of others? A leader, I think, should have balance of confidence and humility. Confidence helps with decision making; humility is the foundation for empowerment.
Their track record
What have they done in terms of leadership and how much of that was change (and how big was the change)? An aspect of trust for me personally is how well someone learns. To be a Trusted Partner a client must be able to stretch, accept certain things and try others. Without that I cannot be a Trusted Advisor- more like a trusted contractor (lower case intentional).
They do not have to bring a successful track record to the table. They rose to where they are, there is a reason for that. Mistakes and/or things that could be called not successful can still accomplish a lot on the people side. There is also lessons to be learned for the business side.
A leader ready to look at the past bad and good and learn from it for the future can be trusted (and can be consulted to and partnered with).
Their demeanor
Personality is probably impossible to change. Demeanor has some flex. Willingness to understand and listen to others in order to be successful and improve is a quality for trust.
If a potential client has a demeanor that I am comfortable with trust begins early. For me respect can overweigh a lot of things, demeanor being one of them. If this leader has done things for business and for people that are commendable demeanor becomes secondary. In fact if they have been strong for one side of the equation and are asking for help with the other we have an excellent start for a trusted partnership.
Their spot on the org. chart
Trust, for me, here has to do with the leverage and power they really have compared to where they think they are (or should be) and where they ACTUALLY are on the org. chart.
If they are being overpowered for their position that says something (not always bad- those I have considered excellent people leaders are often overpowered by the heavy business side/greedy competition). If they are not leveraging their spot on the chart that says something else.
If they can be shown where they are, where they should be and where others see them and then look to improve that I personally can trust them.
Those are my little consulting measures. What about our previous trust list from this perspective? My gauge there has as much to do with trust about the initiative as it does about the person I might contract/partner with.
The list of bullets from the trust post:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
Integrity
Will they be willing to do things after consultation that they will have to stand by? Are they bold enough and willing to take the risk of being checked on whether they do what they say they will?
Strength
They have to have some kind of strength to have risen to where they are. What is it? Does that strength fit the environment/end state they are going to work toward? Are they strong enough to adapt? It can often be important to gauge what they see as strong in others. Again does that line up with the new scenario off in the future?
Ability
Is all this even possible? Do they have the ability and have they built that in others? If not trust will have to be there to absorb the back and forth of what needs to be built and what does not. If there ability is short they may not understand what is needed. A Trusted Partner would be able to make the leap of understanding necessary.
Surety
If they have no connection to the money and most of the time if they are not the owner then they cannot be a Trusted Partner as least for the larger scale change. They can be at a scaled down tactical level though.
If they are the owner like our trust explanation, have they provided enough surety for this change to be possible? We are talking about currency at this point, but what about the currency of their own? How much of themselves are they willing to invest (in both the change and the trusted partnership)?
Charisma
Will people follow this person? Because they trust them or blindly?
Many a founder CEO has a bit of a cult following. The loyal lemmings tend to follow them over the cliff when the organization gets to big for the founders ability. Still, not too worry, the lemmings will follow just as quickly when the leader builds his/her ability and constructs change that makes sense.
And charisma is not really necessary for trust or change anyway (it is just seasoning).
Presence
Are they visible in the organization?
It is hard to trust someone who hides out. It is hard to trust someone who passes the buck. It is hard to trust someone who barks orders from the darkness.
But that too can change. There are many quiet leaders out there. I often trust that presence can be felt through others. Sometimes that is the way it should be for the change to happen.
Trust is a two way street when it comes to consulting. On one side is the Advisor on the other the Partner. Trust is the spot in the middle where they meet. A trusted partnership happens when both parties can go back and forth across the line.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, vision to work
 If this is the year of the Change Agent then it is likely to also be the year for Change Management Snake Oil salesmen. Yes completely sexist, I do not think I have ever met a women selling snake oil.
To be fair those pushing dicey change approaches aren’t actually delivering the fix in a bottle, but the promises often sound that simple.
It often seems everyone wants to be a Change Agent. Those “selling the oil” seem to think it takes one of two things: pseudo certification or having been a stakeholder during change.
The first typically creates someone trained for methods that were derived from interviewing those very people who led change. Status quo approaches creating a training program to be spread to many others (more for revenue than effective change management).
The second is a little of the same with a loud voice behind it.
If I were a client and a consultant (especially a newly minted one) dangled the elixir in front of me I would want to know where they had been placed for previous engagements, how long they were there (long is not necessarily good) and when they arrived. I would also want to know what kind of education was presented to clients to be able to get those roles. And I would want to know about any small things that built on this foundation- training roles, management roles, internal roles, big consulting firm roles etc.
Changes are not poured out of a bottle.
As a leader do not fall prey to the traveling salesman with the flashy cure.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, certification, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, training
At some point things will really pick up (they are slowly moving now) in terms of change roles, strategy and innovation (which is the precursor for strategy and the need for strategic resources). I think late 2012, possibly after the US elections , will be that time.
- At least for senior change practitioners I think we will see demand quickly outstrip supply. Consultants are often on one year to two year engagements now. Each time one of those engagements starts someone is off the market. The supply can run out fast.
- At that point mid level consultants are going to begin to question the need for third parties and raise their rates. When clients feel their margins hit they will look to contract directly with consultants to slow that process. At the same time third parties will begin to get squeezed and consolidate or move on to the next vacuum.
- Negative, resistance fighting change will not be popular.
- Templated change will follow strategy (or clients will be talked out of the purchase and customize their own change).
- Change management will break out of its infancy and become more sophisticated. Understanding motivators and expectations will rank high on the CM competency list.
- Change management consultants, external and internal, will be expected to mentor others.
- The differences between strategic and tactical change will be called out by thought leaders and understood by organizational leaders.
Some signs that things are changing:
- Rates are rising quickly
- Clients are asking for ASAP availability (and actually speeding up their processes to make sure they get the right talent fast)
- Old roles from 2011 are reappearing (with rates 30 – 40% higher)
- Those same roles, even with the raised rates are going unfilled
- Clients are making contacts directly with consultants
- The big consulting firms are posting, and calling about, sub contracting roles (the step that occurs before they begin to fill their stable again)
- I can vouch for a big increase in blog traffic with longer average time per visit to posts that reflect approach, cost and internal/external discussions (that always means hiring will pick up)
I could make a list of things I hope will happen in 2012, all of which would be a return to client consultant direct relationships for both contracting and partnership. I think we have lost that.
Third party (and four and five) arrangements have squeezed client and consultant. When consultants must hustle roles the instant they finish a previous engagement (because they are barely compensated more than employees [who have also had a major hit to compensation in the last few years]) there is no time for the kind of thought, education and skill building that make them so valuable. When clients must refill roles (which rarely happens in direct relationships) they spend (for the right consultant who will now charge, if they are smart, a premium for the client mistake of bringing them in late) everything they saved and more.
Constriction, sometimes euphemistically called “cost savings” eventually has significant and costly (to steal the word) effects. We will see some of those surface in 2012. If the constriction lasts longer we will begin to see an erosion in competency, innovation and ability to change smoothly and “quickly”. I am rooting for the turnabout soon.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management consultant, organizational change, strategy
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
The Change Management Arena is filling up with quite the mix of gladiators, observers, ringmasters and cheering crowds (or is that yelling?).
The Gladiators
These are the firmly entrenched, practiced and experienced consultants. These are the executives and leaders charging bravely (and blindly?) into the ring.
There is a small group of consultants (my measure is many hours spent online in Forums, discussion posts and blog threads) who have weathered CM’s transition from an HR thing, to OD, to change management to behavioral change management to the current and upcoming trend toward a mix of behavior and efficient business practices. These are the people who came before and lived through prescriptive approaches, change as a battle with death, false urgency and a stack of tools (most laughed at by the lions [and the gladiators themselves] in the ring for their ineffectiveness).
This small group makes themselves heard anytime comments, approaches and perspectives get prescriptive. They know full well most of those models were created more for revenue and less for effect (in consulting you are always forced to some extent to cater to client wants- change is strange since clients are usually unaware of what they need versus what they want). This small group knows how change plays out. They have seen all the combinations. Throw lions (and tigers and bears) at them and they can give you creative approaches to tackling the problem.
I have been impressed that this group, unlike the original OD gurus who are touchy-feely to the extreme, has a business sense and a holistic viewpoint that encompasses many stakeholder perspectives to get to solutions and approaches. This group trained in the trenches (although most have Masters or PhD degrees). No certifications for them (unless clients request it, then it is just a deliverable).
There is another group of gladiators, the executives. I almost said the visionaries. That is not always the case. The people who pay for the arena, get the animals shipped in, orchestrate the event and speak to those that will be the cheering throngs stop short of ACTUALLY dealing with the lions. Many are more like Halloween gladiators (not you though senior leader, right?). The actual gladiators internally are the “buck-passed-to” mid level implementers. (They are, unfortunately, swayed by the siren songs of the prescriptive marketers).
The Observers
These are the people searching for “Change Management Career Paths”. They are curious about this career that is all about people (if only it was that simple). They are intrigued by cheese, icebergs and “Making it Stick” stories. They hear the siren call of high compensation and an adoring crowd (the best are making more, yes, the bottom is dropping thanks to a flood of converted observers, created by revenue focused certification machines).
These observers bounce back and forth into discussions, or bravely start their own (sometimes with strange requests for information from the established pros) to find out what this change management thing is. I think they leave a little confused. The prescriptive marketing forces and their evangelistic followers drown out the sensible voices in the crowd.
There is a voice of reason spreading lately that is getting louder and louder and it comes from the gladiators. It is a voice for end state focus, reasonable energy and push (urgency is not the first choice of words). It is voices for change that makes sense that is easy to participate in and that has a positive future oriented perspective (with an understanding that some things do move into the end state- history is part of the change timeline).
The Ringmasters
Are everywhere.
It seems everyone wants a piece of orchestrating change. While most are focusing their attention on the gladiators and the danger in the ring others are behind the scenes supporting the show, working the political intrigue in the catacombs and rigging the event in their favor.
Our word for them today might be gatekeeper.
They are either protecting the gladiator, the executive version- no one protects the CM, or working internal politics in a way that will favor them.
Another version is the individual who sees an opportunity and creates a model or approach or, the cringe worthy word system, catered to the client (whims) and imminently sellable. Because there is a new demand for change management this version of a ringmaster is ubiquitous.
Cheering (?) Crowds
Change is everywhere and is not going away anytime soon.
There are crowds cheering it on. (They are not necessarily cheering for success- see Ringmasters above). They like to watch the gladiators perform. They snicker at the constant attempts by the ringmasters to control the show. They listen patiently to the observers with their naïve curiosity.
They cheer, they boo, they jeer.
Deep down they want the event to end with a satisfying result.
If they do not see that after a couple of visits they are unlikely to return.
A staged, prescriptive event will be much the same the next time. Without the ability to be flexible the show is boring, the best gladiators will likely be eliminated and the ringmasters will have won with the crowd, obviously,losing.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management consultant, End State
The nice thing about blogging is that you can dream.
Here is a list of Magic project prerequisites (before I wake up):
- An early date to start (within days of the idea for the change).
- The owner (where the money starts) as client.
- Peers of the owner interested in meeting you and discussing the change.
- A PMO looking for strategic assistance.
- A PMO that understands anything bigger than a project HAS to have a senior change management consultant.
- A PMO that realizes number 5 is even more effective when external.
- Middle of the organization leadership competencies.
- No Gatekeepers.
- One person review of communications (and not an internal communications person).
- Willingness to do an early talking heads video.
- Realistic compensation (not what procurement people call “market rate”) at least twice the salary this senior level of talent would get paid if an employee.
- A DIRECT relationship- no second, third and fourth party barriers (to compensation and contracting expectations- in both directions consultant and client).
- Budgeting for the roles of training, communications and tactical change management (for at least each program if not project).
- Willing and eager to learn internal resources.
- The right tools or at least the chance to use your own computer (loaded with the right tools).
- Aversion to the statement, “that’s the way we do things around here”.
- Comfort of, and curiosity for, the word, WHY.
- Empathy (from the owner down or from the line stakeholder up).
- Scheduling flexibility- this is a head role not a hand role, the consultant does not necessarily need to be on site all the time.
- Performance measured by the smooth flow of change (not hours put in- that was our high school job).
Twenty is a good start.
What this magic list is about is respect for a seasoned, reasoned external perspective. What this magic list is about are leaders who take responsibility for their roles as both visionaries and guides for change journeys. What this list is about is people doing work that connects to something important. It is a list about something important being the lever for shared work.
And then I wake up…
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change failure, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Context, corporate change management, engagement, executive communications, External Consultant, Fees, horizontal change management, PMO, Value, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
