|
|
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
- 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
This was a search that landed on the HorizontalChange blog.
I have spent three days thinking about it.
THE most important? Tough.
Here are some things that are in the running:
- Highest executive ownership
- External guidance
- Makes sense
- Cash
- Competency
Highest executive ownership
When I ask stakeholders what they think is the most important thing for their change, to a person, they respond with something that has to do with the connection of the top level leader to the change and the work it involves. I call this person the owner (credit to Alan Weiss- his version being the executive a consultant should contract with). The owner holds the money, the influence and the highest level visibility (yes, not necessarily the most power or the most influence).
Stakeholders expect this person to be involved, to be present, to be available and to add work effort (not just management) to the initiative. When they see the buck passed they dial back their energy. When the leader is non existent for this change they push back. When this has been a pattern for a long time (which would describe just about every organization) they expect to see a marked improvement this time around.
My ultimate consultant fantasy is to work with a leader who gets this and is willing to be consulted on approaches to leverage their gift of connection.
External guidance
Change is about tweaking, removing, replacing or redoing status quo (“the state in which” as opposed to the end state). The change appears necessary because the current state is not working in some way. It takes a very self aware person to rejigger their own status quo, let alone replace it completely. Multiply that by the number of stakeholders you have and then increase it geometrically for all of the combinations of status quo that have evolved and you have a scenario that is impossible to change on your own.
External guidance, the right kind that consults for your business and its people, is crucial for big change.
Among other things an external consultant can roam your organization to make connections and create collaboration that internals shy away from. An external can reveal all of those status quo scenarios so they can be discussed in the open. A change management consultant can anticipate the things that slow change, cost money and increase risk. An external is disconnected enough to move from long term to short term thinking in an instant. A senior version of our fertilizing outside influence can also address strategy and tactics back and forth.
Makes sense
What is the point of change if it does not make sense? And yet many, many changes do not. Sometimes they do not for just a few individuals; sometimes for groups; sometimes for the organization (see previous paragraph to at least have these called out). When change does not make sense at a lower level than corporate strategy (and assuming that strategy is defensible) it needs to be explained.
Taketh in one area and you may be able to give in another. There are many things in life that do not make much sense, but life in general is pretty cool; there are many things about change that do not make sense, but growth and improvement does.
Cash
This one will not make the cut because change is chronically under budgeted. If the money could be made available to do it right then cash would quickly rise to the “most important aspect” status.
Cash in general is pretty important. Just as important is how it is used. The balance of budget for now and budget for bigger things never seems to line up when it comes to change- likely because not a whole lot of change can take place within the yearly budget cycle of organizations (let alone some quarterly measures).
So we will say the right amount of cash spent wisely is important.
Competency
You can have ownership, some great external consulting, change that makes sense and your choice of currency to pay for the effort and then find you are way short of talent. Usually you are short of skill (easy to outsource- I always mean independent consultants when I use that word, not second language phone banks), but often you are (also) short of competencies (mid level leadership group of competencies being the most obvious).
With all the slicing and dicing of people and structure that has gone on in the last 3+ years this is VERY common. But of all of our categories this is the easiest one to overcome (see previous category- Cash).
Any of these areas could be considered “the most important aspect”. Other things like a strong PMO, good internal change approaches (example: a corporate change management entity), a clean history of previous changes or positive energy could all be added to the list.
I think the most important aspect of Change Management is the thread that sews this all together. It is the thread that strategizes; that plans; that questions; that collaborates; that looks within; that asks for perspective from outside; that understands context; that explains and that enjoys using talent for the work it produces and the accomplishment that results.
That red (or yellow or blue if you want subtlety) fiery thread that connects change, time and people- that is the most important aspect.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management strategy, Context, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
One of the talking points for Change Management is (“thanks” to Kotter) “Sense of Urgency”.
It is better to focus on Sense of Purpose.
A sense of purpose has a goal in mind (ideally an end state). A sense of purpose can smoothly integrate others. A sense of purpose has a controlled forward movement. Contrast that to urgency which tends to have too many short term goals, wraps up others in a confusion of running around and moves sideways more than forward.
How would you go about building a sense of purpose?
- Define end states
- Include development
- Integrate incentives
- Relay stories
- Support with facts if possible
- Acknowledge Emotion
Define end states
Purpose builds over time. A sense of purpose moves toward something on the horizon. The horizon shortens (or at least the distance is understood) when the end state is clear. The process of defining the end state, translating that into the viewers of multiple stakeholders and then planning backwards the steps that need to be filled in is the first exercise for building a sense of purpose for change.
Include development
Long journeys are perfect for growth, skill building and development. Likely that previously defined end state requires one or all. Including development in the plan and implementation builds both individuals and the organization- it adds extra purpose above and beyond the change. What better time to develop talent than in the process of growing toward a future? In fact that real world connection often means the difference between simply training (building skills) to developing (applying those skills to varying situations).
Integrate incentives
It is possible to have purpose without incentive or reward (teachers and non- profit workers come to mind). It could be argued that purpose is stronger and more efficient when rewarded. The key or change is to have incentive truly support both the change and the individual. That order is important. Many times incentives are figured out at an individual level and then do not connect to the change. Stakeholders see right through that- especially if you have made the mistake of rewarding status quo rather than competency and task building for end states.
Relay stories
Purpose works well when shared. It also works better when improvement from something that happened before seems possible. Stories convey that. “This is what happened” illustrations help for strategy and tactics for change.
And don’t forget the stories that happen during the change. Many initiatives are years long- lots of stories to build purpose. Because of the length many initiatives rotate stakeholders, and many tasks and procedures get repeated. Stories can help make round two even more successful.
Support with facts if possible
Some develop purpose only after seeing facts that show possibility. Some like facts to illustrate they made the right decisions. Some like facts to be able to see the end state in a realistic and empirical way. Gather and use facts to build purpose. Facts don’t lie… unless they are out of context. Context is crucial for sense of purpose. Show the connection between your facts and the end state and make that connection irrefutable.
Acknowledge Emotion
And be ready for those who like to trust, who like emotion, who believe in gut feelings or who are too impatient for the time it takes to gather facts (or do not trust the gatherers).
Acknowledge resistance. And then address it to build the strongest sense of purpose you will ever get (converts are usually fanatics- that is good in our case). Acknowledge and feed excitement and energy. Positive feels light; negative feels heavy. Heavy change rarely has a sense of purpose.
Aim to convert resistance to positive energy. Feed excitement (just be careful of that urgency thing- that is a different kind of excitement).
Sense of purpose leads individuals to work together to get to end states. It is much more effective than sense of urgency and when managed well builds the organization for the next change (as well as increasing the effectiveness of the current initiative).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, change management strategy, corporate change management, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, 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
Viable:
1. vivid; real; stimulating, as to the intellect, imagination, or senses
2. practicable; workable: a viable alternative.
Viability:
the capacity to operate or be sustained: The viability of the company was guaranteed by the success of its new product.
Dictionary.com
Viable Change
Is change that can grab participation.
It is change that challenges, stimulates and helps individuals to grow.
Change that is viable stretches strategy, people, available tactics and leadership.
Viable change can be vivid, real or stimulating and it can be vivid, real AND stimulating. If it does so in connection with intellect and imagination then, just maybe, the end state itself will also be viable.
Change Viability
If so then that end state, that result of the change should be sustainable. The new environment should be able to operate for the benefit and profit of both individuals (all, not just leadership) and the organization of stakeholders, owners and shareholders.
An important component of Change Viability is operations. Viable Change to have Change Viability must entwine with operations. It must be so connected to imagination and a workable future that operations adapts and grows with it.
Viable change and change that is viable must be inextricably mixed with operations. Then it can be workable and practical (to the extent that grand change is practical in the moment) and stimulate at an individual level.
Technorati Tags: change management strategy, Change Strategy, vision to work
This is part two for horizontal change strategy questions. Part 1 asked Consultant to Client questions.
I am assuming the client is the owner (pays for the change, is seen by stakeholders as the top executive connected to the change). Later posts will look at implementary clients and their questions.
- What has your role been for change in the past?
- Is change management a science or art?
- What tools do you use?
- Define change management
- What do you think keeps change from happening?
What has your role been for change in the past?
Depending on the type of change you are pursuing you may look for different answers to this question.
I this is a big, high, broad (truly in need of a horizontal approach) transformation you want the answer to be: facilitator, mentor, consultative support, planner, organizer, rover, “disconnected” external resource. You are looking for an external voice and perspective to help scout the path, alert you to obstacles and help to build YOUR ownership of the change.
If this is smaller horizontal change (say within a big function) the answer can be: Director of Change Management, Change Management Consultant, add your own internal monikers or the first answer. Because change is about a new status quo (no matter how big or small) I personally think you HAVE to have an external guide.
You might want to add some extra questions in about going native, were they in a contracting role (they will be much less consultative), how big/how high/ how important were the initiatives, did they work with clients who understand change, etc.
Is change management a science or art?
Perspective is crucial for change management. It guides assumptions which then dictates approach. Think of the positive people you know. Think of the negative people you know (sorry to make you do that). Which one do you want to work with you?
Those who see CM as more art than science will fall in the positive category (yes generalization). The “scientists” in the bunch not so much so. What is important is how they will be received by the stakeholders in relation to the change. Stakeholders usually feel like guinea pigs with the scientists. In fairness they may feel like they landed at a hippie retreat with the artists.
The answer you want is, “I think CM is an art practiced best by those who understands where science might fit in.”
Smart CM artists know when to use science. By definition someone with a scientific perspective must be less creative and group and lump things together to support their hypothesis (in this case that means their perspective). People, individuals, your stakeholders, see themselves as unique- that “lumping” thing does not usually go over too well.
What tools do you use?
If they are quick to answer, call for the next in line.
If they say, it depends, follow through with some more questions.
Why do you use tools? Or why that specific tool?
What is it you leverage with the use of the tool?
Is this a package of tools that follow your methodology? (If yes, consider putting that second consultant in the batting box).
What you are looking for is a consultant that uses tools to build toward the end state, not just to check off a task, to look busy or to cater to mid level leaders (they love tools and deliverables because that is how you measure their performance). An example: the ubiquitous stakeholder analysis (yes I do use versions of this tool). The stakeholder analysis is a way to see who is involved in the project, when they should be included and to what level that inclusion is realistic. To fill in all those blanks means a lot of interviewing, asking questions, explaining CM and the reason for the tool (and yes maybe a deliverable) and connecting with stakeholders.
When it comes to the tool question look for follow through. No stakeholder ever participated wholeheartedly in change because of a tool.
Define change management
You could ask this first to see how the tool/science/art perspective comes out in the explanation.
If that trio does not come out, next in line, they do not understand change management in context with the past, today and tomorrow.
The answer should have to do with end states rather than gap filling; something about management being a strange word connected to change; a sentence or two about individuals and competency; and a little about where CM is heading.
You want someone who can pull from the past, mix in their own expertise (that came from experience, study and application) and apply that to your specific scenario. (That sentence is actually what change is- history, competency, end state).
What do you think keeps change from happening?
This will be revealing.
And again it could be the first question (especially if your line of consultants to talk to is long).
If they say people, if they mention resistance, if they put blame strictly on leaders, if they miss process, structure and competency… next in line.
What keeps change from happening are all the things built in to your organization that reinforce status quo. Once those things are built, working on the people (you know those “resistors”) is putting a band-aid on a deep wound.
If they respond, “in your organization?” and then say, “it could be you”, hire them.
Designing a horizontal change strategy, especially if a change entity is to be built as part of the plan, requires a consultant with an incredibly broad experience set, and a competency set to match. That same broad strategic expert will also need an empathetic, individual, tactical perspective to help you come up with a strategy that leads you to end states and can be executed.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
When it comes to change management and work in general in organizations there is a lot more going on than the definition reveals:
1: the quality or power of inspiring belief <an account lacking in credibility>
2: capacity for belief <strains her reader’s credibility — Times Literary Supplement>
If we assume credibility is necessary to move change forward the Websters’ definition tells us there must be the capacity for belief for stakeholders and an inspiration for belief from something (that something carries a scale to measure the quality of the inspiration).
Belief
Certainly helps for participation.
The full-bore-excited-champion of the change likely has a strong belief they are doing the right things for the right reasons. If you put all the stakeholders in a spreadsheet and ordered them by participation level, again its likely that belief is a corresponding measure. If something makes sense (my core approach to change) then people will believe in it. So we might be able to say belief, to some extent, is essential for change.
As stakeholders it may not be possible to build that belief individually. You may need facts. You may need support. You may need a leader- someone who can inspire belief.
It may be important though for us to have the capacity to believe. Or at least the ability to believe within the current scenario matched up against the change.
This is the typical entry point for a change management consultant. History, track records and perception must be considered in developing an explanation, guiding leaders and building the capacity to believe. At the same time CM’s are building the competency to inspire belief.
Some separate thoughts:
There are times when a leader is a charismatic powerful conduit for belief. That’s good (unless they are serving Kool-Aid with the inspiration).
There are times when stakeholders just want to believe. (It only takes one sip of the Kool-Aid to fix misdirected belief though).
There are changes that do not necessarily require belief, and stakeholders who will participate without the power of belief.
I think people want to believe in something. CM’s and internal leaders should understand and language believing in change at a deeper level.
Let’s get back to our word.
“Is this credible.”
“Are they credible.”
“Looking at this change and those guiding it makes me incredulous.” Three random, totally made up quotes, that I am sure I have heard many times.
A little credibility building list for you:
- The change HAS to makes sense.
- The change has to be supported- by leaders, by budget, by timing.
- The change has to be explained and carry real facts (not fudged numbers) to build a foundation for the pragmatics to believe.
- The change has to have emotional appeal (hint: not all changes really do, but at some level they do for individuals- leaders should make that connection and communicate their own emotion).
- As a leader you have to have empathy and you have to do a good job (it is up to you to decide the measure of “good”).
- The organization has to have structure and process that makes it possible to believe in possibility. If it doesn’t then something has to change. P.S.: You can get quick belief with THAT kind of change.
- This is not church- faith will carry you a very short distance.
Change cannot happen without credible leaders, a credible change and systems to support the ability to believe.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
A title in a Linked in discussion forum: “Does your organization have a change plan for 2012?”.
My first reaction was that anything that can fall into a year (unless we are talking about a small organization) is more likely a project, maybe a program, but not likely large change. Plans for the next year are not change management (and I would say this type of thinking dilutes change management into two words that mean anything you want) they are operations. You could list the things that are changing. You could call out the things that might be different the next year (maybe a little mini end state). But if you are talking about the organization as a whole it is not a change plan.
Really it is tactical strategy (I know today’s oxymoron).
A change plan in the sense of this title (scrunched into a year) is a project plan for the organizations operations for the next year.
To call it otherwise makes the REAL change management difficult- yes everything has change, but why do we keep shining a light on simple operational changes and treating it like the big stuff?
My title question would be: Do you have an operational plan for 2012? with a subtitle of Does it include adjustments for small changes?
Change plans, if there is such a thing, are not for whole organizations for a set period of time. They are templates for defined initiatives that require major adjustments of perspective, work and behavior (almost always lasting more than a year).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change management, change management strategy, Change Strategy, strategy
This probably does not need much explanation. I can’t imagine there is anyone, at least here in the US, who is not connected directly with someone who has been laid off, lost their job or had their contract cut short (only to have difficulty in replacing the role). Even those in that lofty 1% have peers with major negative career changes (or in the oft chance that is not the case the same 1% likely had a hand in eliminating jobs).
It is what is. Which ought to be the change management motto.
In order to facilitate change in this stripped environment a few things need to be kept in the forefront:
- There is pain. Obviously anyone you bring on is carrying it with them. Acknowledge that and help them move forward in a positive way. Keep in mind those who stayed are in pain in a different way.
- Which shows itself in a desperate need for trust. Those very executives who let the last group go are now leading the charge with the leftovers (who says those remaining think they were the winners?). If those executives are not personally connected to the change (and clearly accountable for the results) you have a long road ahead of you.
- The internal backlash is to hunker down in your silo and refortify the walls- good luck with Horizontal Change. Someone has to be able to scale the walls to present the Makes Sense change. Ideally that is senior executives, secondarily that is the change management consultant carrying the message, the third option is to leverage the senior leaders within the silo to carry the message. Barring all that some version of collaborative cross functional teamwork needs to appear.
- Everything is virtual and travel budgets went with the layoffs. Now you have to have a local representative when you use awareness and brown bag sessions. Somehow, some way there needs to be actual in person connection. The more horizontal, the more cross functional, the better.
- It is time for ideas. Enough with the “this needs to be done tomorrow approach”. Every deliverable should be questioned for its ability to move things into the future. Every meeting should have a why component (and a hint: the insistence on action steps from meetings is not necessarily productive- especially if you are looking through a long term lens).
- How about some genuine “you did well” at the personal level rewards, kudos and acknowledgements?
Someone, some group of people stripped the human element from careers, jobs and roles. Everything is commoditized in the interest of productivity. Half of your work neighbors seem to have gone missing (and if you look a lot of them are doing better as things pick up- change is good). Change in that environment takes a special kind of tact and knowledge.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, change management strategy, corporate change management, Executive, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance, resistance to change, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
