|
|
“it’s very easy to get addicted to the change pattern by not getting the change right in the first place, not making the tough calls or bold decisions up-front, maybe going for something half-way, and then allowing things to slip back.” BP’s Fiona MacLeod (maybe not timely to quote BP, but every organization has a silver lining within) http://tinyurl.com/mewr9p
Change and addiction strung together seems a contradiction to me. It insinuates change is a bad thing. I suppose serial change makes little sense if it is not rooted in reality and sustainability. There, I admitted it might be possible (the first step in conquering addiction- ha).
Take a look at the above link. It is a great example of a realistic change perspective, illustrates a little nitty gritty of the engagement Fiona sponsored, has nothing negative (but talks about how to address potential negatives) was human and business oriented at the same time and, we assume, ended at the end state with sustainability. RARE (note the capital letters).
We will let the link, the project and the content stand on its own and address the “addiction” part.
Here are the ways I see this manifested-
External Consulting Firms
Here you find the most likely culprits. They must be addicted to “change” because that is how they make their money. The more change, the more confusion, the more need for them, the more revenue. My dig here would be the more they are part of the picture the more the whole cycle perpetuates itself. The bigger the firm the more perpetual the endless (and stationary) change.
But aren’t we shooting our own foot here?
Ah, I said firms.
Independent consultants with few or no employees, while probably being addicted to change in their own way, are not in the habit of useless change perpetuation. Maybe they are weekend change fanatics- to extend our metaphor. Their revenue comes from value and perhaps the small teams that they create (and work with and mentor). Their future revenue comes from referrals, testimonials and success.
They can help ease you out of the addiction into a reasonable, moderate level of change intake.
Internal Grass Roots Change
Culprit number two. This tends to sprout and spread because the internal change practitioners (or worse someone who is newly pretending to be one) want their approach, their method and them to win over the organization. With our current dead career ladders this is becoming all too common (to the tune of 27 different approaches at one Fortune 50 firm I can think of).
The second version of this is a partnership of our first category and our second (I can hear the fingernails on the chalkboard now). An outside firm (not always the big ones in this case, more often the (one)s who heavily market their own specific approach) feeds the internal power grabber some content sure to start the addiction and away they go together on an evangelical crusade to convert the entire organization.
Executives with Grand Vision(s)
I am the last one to take the grand visions away from the executives, but there is a translation to reality for some. If they do not have a right hand person, or a trusted external advisor/consultant to make the translation the visions are just fancy dreams. When it becomes serial in an organization is either one executive with many visions (and eager followers) or many executives all over the organization each with their own version of the dream.
Staffing Firms
My pet peeve. They are in the business of getting bodies on the ground (not unlike the huge consulting organizations). Since competition (thankfully) is becoming brutal for them the chance of being picked for the next engagement is slim. So the “bodies” mentality is to get the first win as big as possible and do whatever you can to keep the pattern going. Notice I mentioned nothing about the work or the results.
It is just too easy to ask them to go find people (like using a real estate agent for free for all the house hunting- in fact compare the two…). They convince you as they are pouring the Kool Aid that they find the best long before any other method.
Scapegoating
Let’s face it everyone thinks change “fails 70% of the time” (the dumbest stat I think I have ever seen and certainly not the least bit helpful to anyone). So just in case failure is a possibility why not wrap the whole thing up as a change imitative, then you will have built in blame- not your own.
This has gotten extreme enough that regular operational projects, the kind that happen all the time, are labeled as change initiatives. Hey if it works for the one of tweaks why not use the scapegoat for Everything!
Change is here to stay as they say. And it is necessary to stay ahead and to improve. It is the basis of growing and adapting business. But like wine on the weekend it is best taken at an enjoyable manageable level.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, change awareness, change management, vision
Seems to so clearly make sense. Yet is confusing and sometimes hard to explain, because it means many things (to many people and perspectives). So to borrow from Dictionary.com http://tinyurl.com/2ep67zz
1. to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship: She managed to see the governor. How does she manage it on such a small income?
This would be the overcoming status quo, addressing internal politics inclusion and non-inclusion choices, this would be moving things and people forward where others have failed, this is the big picture of overcoming obstacles. On a small scale it is all the small meetings with “the governor” (to borrow from the definition) that manage change in little increments.
2. to take charge or care of: to manage my investments.
This is the leadership factor. With CM it comes out of educating, building credibility, highlighting change as a growth factor, communicating with transparency, interacting with empathy and shining a light on both business goals and individuals. Negotiating obstacles and seeing ahead are the “take care of” parts.
3. to dominate or influence (a person) by tact, flattery, or artifice: He manages the child with exemplary skill.
Change agents are typically subtle in their steering of momentum and motivation (if they are good) and that is influential. Disregarding history and the effect of performance systems is the dominate part. Tact and flattery are the yin and yang of CM.
4. to handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use: She managed the boat efficiently.
This is the project management piece. Having a true PM as a partner who resides in the same spot in the organization (or at least has equal influence) gives the handling, the directing, the controlling (in a good way to make to do lists easier on stakeholders) of actions. And in the case of technology transformations the use.
5. to wield (a weapon, tool, etc.).
There are times when a poke and a prod, and the more drastic firing of the weapon, is the solution to managing change. Wielding tools with the above tact and flattery is the long term change solution.
6. to handle or train (a horse).
Certainly there are individuals and teams… and functions and executives and boards and… who need to be handled- a little like a green broke horse. Enter training. And perhaps quiet whispers and gentle prods.
7. Archaic . to use sparingly or with judgment, as health or money;
This is the view of the executive who thinks people should just do their job. A view that causes sparing use of money, time and IMHO judgment. Well look at that- it is an archaic definition. 
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, Garrett Gitchell, organizational change, vision to work
Things begin to pick up for business (less fear, willingness to spend hoarded cash, new competition appearing from garages- not sure which is the cause, but things are picking up in the change arena) and the revisiting begins. Change anew. Except some of it is the programs that were cancelled a year or more ago. How is restarted change different?
History Doubled
The ability to move change forward is always effected by previous attempts (bad or good). To start something that did not finish on the first attempt is potentially tempting fate. If, in our current case, the economy can be blamed for the earlier stop, starting again just slots right into the business environment.
Care must be taken with communication for a restart because, excuses aside, a mistake was made. Sure, as a leader you do not think so – it was all part of the plan. The problem is to stakeholders it must not have been a good plan. Now the Pandora’s box of trust, faith in leaders (which is a specific kind of trust), I told you so’s and the appearance of mishaps is opened.
Address the double history issue with crystal clear as transparent as possible communications. You might want to recheck and possibly rethink the new plan- the last thing you want is two historical mishaps.
Second Chances
Everybody believes in second chances. You have one if you are restarting change. Some of your work may already be completed. Redo work can be done better. Mistakes can be corrected. And acknowledged. Which leads me to the “be careful”.
By necessity taking this second chance is assuming empathy. There is a difference between restarted change and any other- the empathy has to flow from the stakeholders to the leaders. Empathy should (I always hesitate to use this word, but it fits now) go from leaders to stakeholders, that is a given. To go both ways sets up an interesting dynamic. Maybe I should have said an effective dynamic because the core of relationships connected to accomplishments is shared empathy. Give it a double dose on your second chance restarts.
Rebuilding is impressive
Taking what you have, envisioning something different and better and then layering in additions is smart change. As with any remodel matching the old lines to the new can be difficult. Because that is an obvious component of rebuilding/remodeling everyone is impressed when the result is seamless. With your restart this is an opening for a view of the end state that includes overcoming and tackling obstacles.
For that to make sense as an explanation there must be honesty, transparency and camaraderie around stops and starts and the end states they can create.
With that you can restart and rebuild at the same time.
Technorati Tags: change communications, change failure, change management, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
A Change Practitioner will need to steer, guide, lead and prod for a variety of situations. While human nature can be consistent cultures and processes within organizations are distinct. Which of course is the result of human nature. Intuition, experience and empathy may carry the day for knowing people in general, but to get to the specifics and the “distinct” of one organizations takes an initial list of questions and to-do’s.
-
How do they communicate
-
What are the horizontal connections (if any)
-
Where is leverage the strongest
-
How weak or strong is the PMO
-
What is the history of change
-
What is the understanding of change management
-
At the individual level what are the disconnects in the organization
Turning these bullets into actual questions to individual stakeholders will create a list of helpful and not so helpful in terms of the way the organization exchanges, moves and learns. In fact the last bullet usually reveals the first (but feels too much like a resistance/negative approach to be a start for new conversations). What you hope for as a leader/change agent are clean lines of communication horizontally, vertically and circular; enough breakage of a silo structure that the change work can cross functions; leverage in the right spots as catalysts rather than roadblocks; an effective, aware and capable PMO; as little bad baggage as possible and understanding/willingness on the part of the stakeholders.
You can see how the short list gets long fast and now have some more data on why most organizations need Change Management.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, change management, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Taken completely out of context (barely) from a post within a LinkedIn group.
Nor did he have the internet, global communications, virtual teams, contracted work groups or the need to constantly keep up with the business environment. What he did have is structure, hierarchy and unwritten rules about participating and unemployment (for not doing so).
As a leader why do I need change management?
You don’t.
If… you have the capacity in your organization to come up with ideas, that lead to vision, that illustrate end states, that tie to the energy, motivation and skill set of those you hired. Oh, and collaboration across function, culture, geography and virtual space, lack of internal politics that slow the fulfillment of goals. Of course you will also need to fully understand the mood and trust within your organization along with what you have for competencies, leadership and capacity.
You could delegate some of this out to the PM, you could pass the responsibility down to your junior leaders, you could partner with HR, you could force feed work in order to get it done. If you did all this passing and pushing where would you be…back in his day.
Think that works?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CEO, change management, Garrett Gitchell
Newsweek article has my head spinning on a creative streak. http://tinyurl.com/27krc5j or the old fashioned paper version-much more tactile. It turns out the reason for that spin is a process of looking at something from the familiar and facts, to searching for other connections hanging around in our brains, to refocusing on the tie. And “Bam!” as one creative says- the “aha!” moment.
This is the creativity of ideas. It is the ability to see things from a different angle, perspective, approach. This is innovation at its core.
What it requires (ideas and therefore innovation and… possibly change?) is the ability to have divergent-convergent thinking. Adults, and it appears children too, thanks to our move toward a rote approach to education, spend a lot of time and are measured on the convergent side. Think deliverables, results, specifics. Divergent is less nurtured, if at all, and tends to have something to do with crayons, pens and scissors (usually not pencils).
When it comes to people, task and change management this presents a dilemma. Convergent thinking will create some urgency, quick wins and action and run roughshod over aha moments. By nature change if it is at all horizontal requires divergent thought. It certainly needs a few aha spots. Which means a change practitioner should be adept at fusing right brain to left and or bringing that out in others. A really good practitioner/leader would build those possibilities into the system/process/structure and fabric of the organization.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change management, Garrett Gitchell, vision, vision to work
This is an interesting relationship. Symbiotic, hopefully. Adversarial, sometimes. Good show, always.
When they are the same person
Usually that means layering CM into the role of the project manager. There is a conflict here. A project manager will by nature work to narrow focus to reduce risk. When focus expands it is to satisfy “the list”. They know that the broader the spread the more the risk because that brings in more People. The more time spent influencing people the less spent managing the timeline of to-do’s.
At times, less than our first combo, the CM is tasked with both roles. There is, perhaps, less of a conflict here. A change practitioner will by nature work to broaden perspective because they know the risk inherent with a narrow focus, especially when it comes to People. The more time spent influencing people the less time spent revisiting the to-do timeline.
My suggestion for both- pay more attention to the effect on people than the list itself. The list is dictated by participation. It is very difficult (hence CM as a career) to dictate participation.
When they are two people at the same horizontal
This is not always managed well in organizations. Because of the view that change is something layered over a project CM is usually added too late. CM comes first; PM comes second. If the operating horizontal is the highest the initiative needs to reach they could start close to the same time as long as the planning is CM to PM. Then the symbiosis begins. Now the PM can focus on strict management of costs, risks and tasks (and they could take or help with the role of measurement along the way). The CM can anticipate and address roadblocks in the rollout of the change (and shepard through a lot of those PM to do’s).
When they are two people at different horizontals
This is the potential adversarial combination. If one has better leverage and connection to leaders and that is not transferred to the other it becomes a battle between “this has to happen now” and “I can tell you why it will not”. When this combo is CM higher and PM lower it has a real chance of working. It is the change practitioner that needs ultimate (whatever that means for the particular initiative) exposure in order to get ahead of people risk. With that exposure and a jump start on the PM work the CM can make project management much easier for everyone involved. This can also be an excellent mentoring arrangement to help mold a version of paragraph one.
If the PM is high and the CM is thrown into the middle of the organization it is… like 90% of the engagements with CM involved. This is the status quo arrangement that makes change management an exercise in futility. It takes a knowledgeable, understanding, flexible PM to work in this arrangement. It takes a senior experienced connected to people CM to orchestrate the partnership. If there is any hint of control of the CM on the part of the PM then there will be an adversarial combination.
In general the change management piece must be guided with a broad perspective which then connects to specific moves forward on the timeline (including specific tasks). The project management piece operates best when it can dispatch talent to task and know, within reason, how long it will take to check off the to-do. If you can get that in the same person (and they will still have time left to sleep) great. Just remember-
CM early and broad.
Technorati Tags: change management, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, vision to work
I came across a post the other day that said getting stakeholders to use new technology meant addressing their own self interest http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-manager/?p=3976. The post is on the right track. IT implementations are, admittedly, a specific type of change. Every form of change has a “punch a different key” aspect and IT change rarely stays confined in a nice manageable timeline. So lets look at self interest as a general perspective.
Well, of course
Everything we do is in our own self interest. The more we need to change the more our self interest comes into play. We balance need for action against willingness to act. We place ourselves inside the change to see if there is a fit. We watch those around us to see how self interest guides them. We measure action against inaction on a self interest scale.
Just another resistance approach?
Something is just not right with this view of change…it feels negative. “No way are they going to do this… because it is not in their own best interests.” I sense the next statement would be, “we need to show them what not changing will look like”. And then you have another approach based on the assumption that people automatically resist.
Self interest is OK
Better we look at self interest as an automatic thing. Better we use it advantageously. What happens as a result of self interest is usually a symptom of something else- especially if it is inaction. Is the structure of the organization getting in the way? Has history of botched change put up walls? Is the reward system so based on paying off self interest that participating on a larger scale does not make sense? Is self interest dialed in and out based on functional connection (this I have seen in IT do to the specificity of their roles, but they certainly do not own functional connection)? Is corporate strategy weak and/or short term? Do changes make sense (all the way to the individual level)?
Having asked these questions self interest begins to be a barometer of the effectiveness of the organization and its people. It turns out to be a way to, yes, find out reasons to resist. Addressing those valid reasons is a first step for an effective change approach. Self interest just became OK.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change management, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
Change is always about action. Or for the historical, resistance approaches, inaction.
For action to happen there must be some stimulus that gets it started and keeps it going. The trigger/switch at the individual level is motivation. That foundation out of the way, who is in charge of the triggers?
The Individual
You would think it would start here. The individual most likely assumes it will start somewhere else. When an individual has chosen to do something on their own, say find a job, they are certainly responsible for motivation. They will feed that with the carrots and sticks of different opportunities. But when an individual is expected to do something they relinquish control of motivation.
The Boss
Which brings us to the first level leaders. They are the closest to core motivational action. They have the chance to effect action. Unfortunately they are the bosses- as my kids say, “stop bossing me around”. Doubly unfortunate is the fact that they are also individuals. They are saddled with the need to both act and be responsible for action. With so much action on the radar it is easy to forget that action requires motivation.
The Mid Level Manager
It is here that the carrots and sticks are stacked, measured, bargained for and grouped. Since carrots and sticks are a fairly weak motivator, force and coercion are often chosen as alternatives. So now we have an individual who is also a boss delivering blows and wishing they could somehow satisfy everyone- which would probably increase motivation and therefore the right actions.
The Acronym Leaders
At this level you get your title shortened, from seven and eight letters (and more) to 2- VP. Not only must motivation at an individual level (which of course includes the VP) be considered, but there is now an invisible core energy centered around function (read skill, focus and a certain kind of specific motivation) that has a powerful action/inaction lever. Competing motivators and competing actions (or not) appear. The more this person takes charge of functional motivators the more they tend to run head-on into disparate organizational motivators- especially if they are wrapped up in a change package.
Enter the Figureheads
SVP’s.
Their idea of individual now means something completely different. Their understanding of motivators has been tarnished by the rise through the other levels. My favorite motivator- make this make sense- has lost its importance next to, “here is the list make it happen”. The SVP’s have a confusing list of competing interests, all of our categories, plus functions in general, sometimes the combination of functions (who do not always get along- think sales and marketing), the board (since many of them sit there), which means shareholders (a category of individuals that has a serious, often detrimental effect on motivation and action)…
Which leads to the Founder/CEO/Evangelist
It is just as easy to say they are in charge of motivation as it is to say the same of the individuals. For both you might just be right. While this individual (mixing categories again) has the weight of the world on their shoulders they also have all the potential for motivation that can create both action and the motivation to act. They can guide systems, processes, structure and rewards. They can acknowledge (hint- biggest motivator for action), stir collaboration, mediate disputes and discrepancies and bring in the tools and resources to motivate worthwhile action (another hint- see make sense above).
We might have to call it a tie.
In the hierarchical structure, horizontal/matrixed or not, the top person is ultimately, on paper, in charge of motivation. In a democratic, each-person-is-a-shining-light culture, the individual is in charge of every action (not necessarily responsible, just in charge). So it is a tie. Since each person is an individual tie broken.
Which creates a nasty circular looped argument for change management to focus on the individual in terms of action. Search “change management” and you will find approaches that slot right in.
Motivation requires an input, which creates energy to stimulate action. Skip the input (makes sense is one) and go straight to the energy (urgency?) and you get…an equal and opposite reaction.
Approaches to action/change that look at the organizations world from an individual stakeholder perspective back at all the sticks, all the carrots, all of our categories and all of the other angles that influence motivated action (the best kind for change, read “Champions”) …work.
Those approaches create Vision to Work… for a change.
(couldn’t resist a plug )
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management consultant, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, resistance to change, vision to work
Changes in organizations are approached in two ways. One is to frost the change over existing operations as an add on. The other is to set the change off to the side and “manage it” as a new and separate thing. They both have their pros and cons.
Layered Change
Layering change over existing operations works well when process and structure need to be tweaked or overturned. Layering makes it easier to have transition periods, to train and adapt stakeholders in their true environments and to set up for sustainability and a foothold for the change.
Change that is layered can also be focused on specific areas or functions. That focus can then be repeated. So layering works well with piloting. Because layers by nature build to a whole, each successive wave can gain improvements from the previous attempts. The succession possibility also makes this a way to train internal leaders on the change process.
Layered change is fantastic for year to year smaller changes in operations itself. Every little thing in an organization is a change (if not the organization ceases to exist or ends up existing under another umbrella), but they do not all have to be labeled as initiatives, programs or even projects. Layering from year to year helps with a smooth organizational change process.
Peeled Change
Is change that is guided separate from day to day operations. This means resources tend to be heavily external. Which is smart since peeling necessarily means taking away. That taking away can be a positive for internal resources if it is meant to train and develop. Focusing on the process of change can be a powerful addition to a young leaders arsenal and by extension the organization. Peeled change has little that gets in it way, but it can get in the way, because any change will at some point need to become operational.
Internal resources are not typically employed full time to large change initiatives- even when they are peeled. This creates a push and pull for resource time usually won by operations over change. If the separation and reintegration of those resources is managed by the change process though this can be a great way to keep the change management crisp and efficient.
Too many peels on the ground gets a little slippery though…
As a senior leader it is important to look at your strategic initiatives, programs and projects with an eye toward their connection to day to day operations and culture. The tighter the hold, or put another way, the less transformational, the more layering makes sense. The questions to ask are-
How drastic is this change?
How much do we want the work we do around managing this change to integrate into our fabric?
At what point and in what way do we insert the change (knowing there will be disruption to operations)?
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change awareness, change management, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
|
|
