|
|
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given us an up to date view of change management- “Leaders of Change- Companies prepare for a stronger future”.
A little background:
The study was authored by Paul Kielstra. It survey 288 executives, 42 % C-level or above from North America (44%), Western Europe (40%) and Latin America (16%). 75% of respondents came from organizations with revenue of US$1bn or above. A nice mix to give us some change statistics.
Their introduction:
“Although companies remain, as always, cost conscious, they are putting much more emphasis on growing market share and preparing for the future.
Similarly, organisations are increasingly devoting their attention to the sales and marketing functions.
This further reflects the shift in emphasis towards growth and the future and away from cost cutting.
Apparently, executives are leaving the preoccupations of surviving the downturn behind.
Yet companies are still, all too often, unable to execute change. The responsibility inevitably resides
with their leaders.
Excellent! Statistics to back up my comments for the last six months or so.
Driving forces for change:
Cost pressures topped the list averaging 50% with customer demand, regulation and market share following. Growth types of change- mergers, market opportunity and reducing complexity (nimble is crucial for fast change) were significantly lower percentages. The good news is that last years study topped 66% for cost reduction- that is improvement in the right direction.
An interesting note here- Wouldn’t “reducing complexity”, not cost cutting but creating nimbleness, help for any change? Adding a Corporate Change Management entity would fall in that category. What better time than now to do that to be ready for next year’s study that has growth initiatives topping the charts…
Which area of the corporation is getting the change initiatives?
Sales wins with 41% followed by Supply chain/Procurement (26%), IT (24%) and Finance (20%). HR, Customer Service and others fall farther down the list. Sales and marketing, that would be a first step toward growth- a good sign. Of course I am not happy to see procurement so high on the list- that will turn out to have been a problem when everyone switches to growth mode (the environment as a result is not conducive to external input that can help fuel the right growth).
The “company as a whole”, Asset optimization and “Senior management” barely make the chart. No investment in infrastructure or people. That is a trend that will need to change for growth and prosperity that filters throughout the organization.
Change in Resource Focus:
There is a trend in this study toward altered focus on resource spending. Forty seven percent of the respondents have environments where change focus was either increased or greatly increased. A VERY significant set of number, good ones, is the measure of executive participation with important change. Sixty three percent of the respondents fell in the increased or greatly increased categories.
Did 37% of the executives in the polled organizations think the status quo was doing just fine? Or, in fairness, maybe they were in no position to change anything.
Success?
So were these change initiatives successful (keeping in mind we are asking what might be the foxes in the hen house…)?
73% think that at least half of their change was successful. So much for the bandied about 70% failure rate.
Bottleneck Employees
Who is responsible for the 27% failure (and the extra percentage built into the 1/2, 3/4 responses)?
Those poor middle managers always taking the heat for everything. I admit I am a little guilty as charged for jumping on that band wagon. At times the criticism is warranted, but these numbers look like it is piled on- especially since only five percent of the respondents were willing to take the heat. Humility, refreshing, I want them for clients.
Cause of Failure
This is always revealing and this survey did not disappoint.
Lack of clearly defined milestones and objectives “won” this one easily (35% C-suite and 28% non C-suite, but still in the senior leader category). Insufficient funding, poor communication and employee resistance (the light in the tunnel) were far behind.
First look at the chart and think about who the survey respondents were. It looks as if the C-suite is pointing fingers at middle management again. What if we gave the same survey to those same senior managers, or better yet the other stakeholders? Think the numbers would tweak a little? This chart illustrates the reason why we have change management in the first place. And the questions play into the framing.
Thanks to the framing of the survey (science can be manipulated) there are no questions about descriptions of end states. Or a nice question about the presence of the owner. I am guessing these respondents think “senior management” are the implementers (not them). And insufficient funding only gets 3 and 7 percent in a nasty down economy. I find that almost impossible to believe.
But in all fairness this is good stuff. It is the right mix for the survey. It is owners answering the questions. The questions are revealing as are the answers (the top line above reveals a project management focus toward change, even at the highest levels).
This study from the Economist givess timely statistics for change. Here is to hoping the percentages sweep in favor of growth and large scale transformation for the next version.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change failure, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, organizational change, statistics, vision to work
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
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
“Questions to ask for Horizontal Change Management Strategy” was a search to our site. Intriguing it is, and the seed for multiple blog posts.
- What is the organizations change history?
- How “visible” is the CEO?
- What does your performance management system measure?
- What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
- To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
What is the organizations change history?
History is the foundation for change.
In the positive sense it is a series of successes and mistakes that made the organization profitable and successful. Less positive it is a pattern, or set of patterns, that does not work for the future. A horizontal change strategy must be malleable. If that is not in the organizations history lots of questions will have to turn into dialogue and plans to change patterns.
A subset question here would be, “What is your (client) change history?”. How this client (I am assuming for this post that the client is the owner of the change) has dealt with change on their own and with this company is an absolutely crucial element for horizontal change.
How “visible” is the CEO?
How visible in terms of people actually seeing them or reading things from them and visibility connected to work efforts. Is this a founder CEO who has his/her mitts on everything that happens in the organization? Is this a new CEO? Is this a CEO that came from an acquiring company (that now has the grand vision of togetherness and cross functional collaboration)?
The visibility of the CEO may have to adapt as part of the horizontal change strategy. The range will be from more visibility less hands on to more hands on less visibility depending on where the organization is in its history and how this CEO fits into that picture (and of course what the end state might look like).
What does your performance management system measure?
The first question is really, “Do you have a performance management system?”. The answer is always yes which is too bad.
Do you measure deliverables? Do you measure short term (not good for horizontal strategy- not good for any strategy really)? Do you measure individually? Are your measures subjective? Do you measure to retain or cull?
Your PM system is the most crucial element for horizontal change. Not addressing and revamping it is almost a no-go for horizontal alignment.
What does your org. chart look like and do you understand its significance?
Yes you have an org. chart even if it is not printed or posted.
You have the formal version and you have the informal version(s). If you are lucky the informal is more horizontal than you expected. I often find a lot of organic bartering and exchange in the middle of those informal charts.
The significance of these two types of people maps is important to horizontal change.
Are you calling our your silo-ed nature with the placement of the boxes? Is there anything in that chart that shows cross collaborative connections?
Don’t think that you have to somehow switch to a lovely flat line of boxes because everyone is going to work together in a matrix (the matrix does not exist- anywhere except in a garage with a startup and even that is short lived to the point where the garage door must open). Functions are IMPORTANT. It is within the functional structure that talent, competency and skill shine- especially at the individual level.
You can keep a functional hierarchy with horizontal strategy. It just takes some crafting and messaging to have that work effectively.
To what extent has your organization devolved into organic interaction?
See the second question. Go back to the first. Has the middle of your company taken on a life of its own? Are things scaling up? (scaling up is the process of getting permission from leaders through “executive presentations”- lots of patterns, most detrimental, follow this adaptation by middle managers).
Devolved in this question will likely raise feathers (not with the owner client but with those middle managers). When an organization has a lot of organic change it is a signal. It is also a light shining on the ways in which people are working around the status quo. Some of those ways will be beneficial for your horizontal change strategy, some will not. All of them will be revealing.
There are many many more questions. With consultants the questions never end.
In order to design a horizontal strategy that will actually work, questions must dig into root causes of problems and start a pattern of asking why. Why questions are a specific kind of question to elicit perspective, reasoning and feedback. They also help pull out actual fact versus subjective opinion. Many of the questions will have to do with history, the owner of the change, the CEO and individuals working to accomplish.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, Change Strategy, corporate change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
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
A previous post about rates consistently gets hits.
Good news for consultants. The market is picking up.
Maybe bad news for clients that means rates are rising.
Knowledgeable, reasonable clients barely lowered the amount they would pay during our nasty economic streak. So this impacts those who worked a bad environment to their own advantage. Rates are finally moving back to the “consultants get paid a lot more than employees” level.
Here are the signs things have changed (at least for change management consultants):
- Rates are now being posted by third parties (they kept it secret the last two years to pull down the desperate).
- A rate posted yesterday (ridiculously low for what they were asking) had the note, “we absolutely cannot go higher” (and likely they ABSOLUTELY will be waiting a long time to fill the role).
- Low ball rates are sitting on the job sights on a permanent basis- unfilled.
- I have been contacted by third parties (two to three times a week in the last month or so) who quote me the lowball rates, I give them my rate which is usually 30%+ higher, they submit and the client asks for a conversation. That means someone is paying more or losing margin…
- Third party firms are merging. Economy of scale or a tightening market?
- Positions are being reposted 3 to 6 months later. Which means they paid low, got what they paid for and are now searching for a fix (PS senior consultants start charging an arm and a leg for these roles).
- I have been personally contacted months later for roles I refused, because I charged 30% or so more, at the rate I quoted plus built in flexibility (I still turned those down see “fix” above).
- The rates I quote now, very close to the “high” (wages have been depressed for at least 10 years, 30 by some measures) of 2008 have suddenly become reasonable for both direct and third party arrangements.
- Posted rates (rare see bullet one) are rising. An $850 a day rate appeared yesterday (the high so far for posted rates- senior consultants you can charge more than that direct).
- Clients are using consultants to find other consultants. Unfortunately, at least here in California, those clients are still using sourcing/payroll firms to process consultants (a needless expense on the consultant side and often on the client side too).
- Short engagements with a strategic focus are appearing. This one gets a giant cheer from me. Strategy and innovation have really been squashed the last couple of years.
Here is my take on market rates:
I base this on the fact that lower rates make the role reappear (or have the client revisiting the consultants they thought charged too much). If the role appears they likely paid too little and got a junior/less experienced consultant. I will give you converted rates in hourly compensation even though I think that arrangement makes absolutely no sense for consulting. Rates are direct/third party and are California rates (subtracting 10 – 20% seems to fit for Midwest roles). Clients you will notice if you are using the big firms that you are paying a LOT of money for your resources- this is a list for INDEPENDENT consultants.
- Junior consultant (will work mostly on training and communications)= $80/70 hr.
- Mid level consultant (does above and can come in early [for those enlightened clients out there] to build plans and assessments)= $90/85 hr.
- Senior consultant (does above if needed for smaller projects, but usually has other internal and external resources dedicated to those roles)= $110/100 hr.
- Lead consultant (guides above with dedicated resources and plans long term change strategy. Also works to connect projects/programs/initiatives into a seamless work stream)= $130/(should not be third party)/105 hr.
- Guru (I really do not like that word…they can design a Corporate Change Entity, they can do all of the previous if needed, they can teach and mentor someone else to do all of the previous and they are thought leaders [preferably innovative thought leaders] in their field. They are educated, experienced and very empathetic to client wants versus needs)= hard to put a price on this. This arrangement absolutely has to go around procurement processes and be direct. This person can save you a TON of money. They can also help to make others happy (which boosts productivity). Their compensation should be based on the value they will provide (immediately in seeing savings and in the future for dealing with root causes that cost money). If you have to convert that into an hourly rate I would say the range is $130 – 200. The first I would take for a great role with impressive executives. The second would be a value based conversion (and the client is likely still getting an incredible investment on their money). This person works directly with people who make millions of dollars a year (in case your jaw dropped at the yearly conversion- a good consultant can still make high six figures and more, only a few go above that on their own without creating a professional services firm and gaining compensation through others).
The next thing to come up (maybe this is a 2012 prediction) is the reappearance of one and two day internal seminars about change, project management and communications. Those were $5,000+ per day back in 2008. I like to tie them into larger retainer packages for clients for my own work, but they are also good introductions to the consultant, their perspective and their style. And clients, they are an excellent way to start socialization and stakeholder connection!
Rate ranges, of course, can be all over the place. They can be hourly, project, time or value based (the last makes the most sense on both sides- see Alan Weiss). This is an “I have watched and interacted with the market” perspective. Apologies to anyone trying to hide these numbers for gain.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, CCM, CEO, corporate change management, corporate strategy, engagement, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, rates, Value, vision to work
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
One hundred projects, six programs, multiple initiatives and one major multi-year transformation (not necessarily including all the previous). That is one sample function. Yes I did say function rather than company. One user at the end of the line could potentially be receiving communication from 150+ different sources. This is typical of Fortune 50 firms (and scalable for smaller companies).
Wow. The noise is (must be) deafening.
What to do about this as a leader, a change management consultant or a communications person?
- High level strategic change management
- Communication correctness
- Interactivity
- Media/Medium
High level Strategic Change Management
It seems, lately, to have fallen on the senior change management consultants to call out the silliness of upwards of 100 projects in EACH vertical. As an outsider I see this as a glaring example of the weakness of strategy in most organizations. The amount of projects seems to correlate with the amount of “inclusion” and “collaboration” (two words that mean no one makes decisions because everyone has to agree) within the organization.
A couple of good decisions could cut the number in half.
That would be in a perfect non-existent world. Plan B is to work at the highest levels to clearly understand the difference between a project, a program, an initiative and transformation. Then combine, rename and reduce duplication of effort.
By doing so you have at least begun to remove the Structural Noise.
Communication correctness
Even without the high level fix communication that is going out can be looked at for timing, amount and kind of content, and frequency.
Timing
Announce early how you will communicate and how often. Address leadership communication and broad messages early in your timeline. Separate tracks of communication that are project oriented. Deliver the right communication to the right people at the right time.
Content
Label it with templates (remember the announce how you will communicate- they will know which type of content by the template).
Separate it into categories, bullets or items for easier reception and deeper understanding.
Mix it up. We see, hear, talk, listen, watch. All of those things help us to be aware and understand. Use them advantageously.
Frequency
Don’t let anyone tell you the more communication the better. Even perfect comms. delivered endlessly fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes).
The frequency should be enough to get the point across- always introductions to phases, kudos for closure of a milestone and important updates. There are even times when daily updates make sense- say during testing or in situations where there is constant and heavy interaction.
Interactivity
When there is too much noise we have to ignore it. If the noise moves from one spot to another though we suddenly pay attention (however fleeting that attention may be). Make your noise more interesting than others. Use video, use links, use feedback mechanisms, have comment sections, use forums, even relay back in some way water cooler information that would be helpful to all.
Keep in mind this motto (my own). If it moves there has to be a reason (other than beating out the communication competition). We are not talking about PowerPoint animation overload.
Media/Medium
How does it get there? Do these listeners use that medium? I rarely look at videos unless I need to learn something (even then it might be faster to read since videos often have a whole lot of intro and summary fluff). Someone else may choose to never read and always want to watch. Make sure we both can get to your content.
Then there is the media within the medium. Your internet may be the medium and SharePoint your media. If you have used SharePoint you know how quickly the noise gets cranked up. If you create a folder to try to organize the link addresses get miles long. Just make sure once at the landing spot people can find the content.
I consider all of these areas when I am trying to figure out how to conquer client noise. Communication- right amount, to the right place, from the right sender, easy to find, easy to absorb.
Here is a hint though: Develop a voice to voice plan that can spread to add a little insurance.
Socializing is one version. Using champions that people listen to is another. Getting as high up the ladder of leadership for senders is another.
Don’t crank up the noise. That will just irritate your listeners..
Technorati Tags: change communications, change failure, Change Strategy, Communications, corporate change management, corporate strategy, engagement, organizational change
Guiding change in organizations is a little like whipping up a morning smoothie.
Get the right ingredients and it goes down smooth and cool with a sweet aftertaste. Mix in, drop in, splash in one nasty ingredient and your morning and the rest of the day can get unsavory. And you thought I was still talking about the smoothie…
The good stuff in the change blender:
- Social Media
- Computer Based Training (CBT’s)
- A young generation always ready to try
- Leadership (beginning to get this change/people/business thing)
- So much change that is is hard to keep structure together
- So much change that culture is movable (and sometimes even malleable)
Some nasty ingredients to avoid:
- Hanging on to stranded leaders
- Anyone who says, “we have always done it this way”.
- Anyone who does not have “why” in their vocabulary
- Anyone with an empty calendar
- Anything more than single approval
- Third Parties
Lets’ run through these:
Social Media
Is awesome in its ability to gather information, sift it and then dust the filtered (or fixed or solved or answered) results onto the change. Forums, Wiki’s, Blogs, SharePoint and similar tools all help to save time, create collaboration and give visibility to change.
CBT’s
I come from a face to face background- early executive presentation coaching/consulting- and, obviously, as a high level change management consultant benefit every time I am collocated and connecting, but… CBT’s can be an amazing time saver. Since I am a big “why?” person when it comes to any form of disconnect between people using a CBT is a very conscious choice. Technical information, simple instructions, easy task lists can be put into a CBT and as I say, “you bag the easy stuff”. Ideally you just freed up time for the genuinely needed in person work and you prepared the stakeholders for better engagement and learning.
Switch the order too for a different kind of effectiveness- in person work then CBT’s to reinforce (with a better understanding of big picture).
Youth
I changed this from the younger generation to youth. Because this is really about an attitude and approach to life. The less you have seen the easier it is to fly out of bed in the morning. As you get older, chronologically, it gets harder and harder to set aside the bad examples and bad influences. So youth is an approach.
If you choose to be receptive to change (not saying you have to accept it unless it makes sense) you can live like a 25 year old. A 25 year old can get frustrated with obstacles. If you are older than that and step lightly around those roadblocks you can at least do the SKIP out of bed.
Leadership
The good kind.
The kind where change is acknowledged as a sometimes difficult process. A process that ties people (or not) to what is important to them. That plays out in many ways- enjoying work, wanting to be part of the bigger picture, cash, kudos and camaraderie.
Also the kind that treads lightly, but firmly, on the idea that work and jobs and careers are an equation of doing something (well hopefully) and getting paid for it. Leadership should never forget this. Done well, neither will stakeholders.
Structure
Companies seem to be in a once a year organizational design cycle. Which, of course, is ridiculous. In some ways though that is helpful for change management. It means individual power silos are hard to create. It means everyone must constantly be learning. It means that those individuals who are “problems” start to get called out (and in a perfect world do not make the cut at some point for a new structure).
Culture
Short status quo periods can really help CM.
Change grows and thrives when you feed it with new. (I hesitate to use a political example, but look at the side in the US that wants less and less change- just keep it simple… anyone making more money now doing the same thing as 10 years ago as a result of that simplicity?).
When culture gets stirred up people must collaborate. They must try to find compromise. And they must find ways to make hard decisions that are not compromise (hint bargaining, negotiating and shared ownership of solutions).
Stranded Leaders
Grab an org. chart and see if you can find the executive with only a couple (or, shudder, no) reports. They are either at the tail end of a perfectly executed succession plan (hint that is a fantasy) OR they have been stranded over time. There is no telling what someone will do when they are deserted and ostracized. The effect can make for a nasty change smoothie.
Always been this way
Which is exactly why it is being changed now.
Point made.
Why?
If you do not know how to ask this question and figure out how to get the answer then you will not be able to change. If you are a leader lacking this competency (not sure how you got where you are without it) then it must be difficult to get anyone to accomplish anything.
To not be able to answer why for stakeholders is inexcusable (but, unfortunately only too common).
Empty Calendars
In my first reach out waves to stakeholders at all levels of the organization I always notice calendars. The empty ones stand out. Especially if this leader is going to be the one to help pass out the smoothie in their function.
NO ONE has an empty calendar.
I do not even have an empty calendar at the end of the first day of an engagement.
Empty calendars are bitter ingredients.
Approvals
One please.
A few more discerning eyes if you want.
Just not a committee.
Approvals are like big chunks of ice in the smoothie. They ruin the texture, freeze things up and eventually, after a wait, completely water down the mix.
Third Parties
First disclosure: I have an S Corp, Vision to Work, and so have the capacity, and use it, to bring in sub contractors for specialized work. In those cases I am a third party (in case you have not read my stuff before, the first party is the client, the second the person delivering anyone EXTRA is a third, fourth etc. That looks backwards I know, but think about it…).
The third parties I am talking about are the fly by night sourcing firms that pop up all over the place. They really, really get in the way of the contracting process- both the compensation and the agreement between client and deliverer. Use them for true deliverable based contracting. Do not put them in the way for true consulting.
So there is your change smoothie- stuff to put in, stuff to keep out.
Technorati Tags: change failure, Communication, Context, corporate change management, engagement, organizational change, stakeholders
While digging through an endless list of available templates and “tools” at a large organization with an established PM/CM process it dawned on me that the whole system is geared toward those carrying out the change. Everything is about replacing the old with the new, transitioning, impact (worded in a way that sounds like resistance is inevitable and the “impact” will be the surge back at the project team).
Change does not happen if the stakeholders do not do something different. The plan should be looking at that- in other words the end state and the actions, learning and behavior needed to get there. Once that is determined then an honest look at the present can be made.
A perspective more like- here is the end, this is what we need, we have this but not that, this does not fit into that picture. By the time the “conversation” (mirrored by the change/project process) gets to the “this does not fit in” the stakeholders could be making the list for the team. In fact with this approach I have found the stakeholders well ahead of the project team in their movement to the end state, many times.
For 2011 and on a new conversation needs to be had around organizational change. (it is happening slowly but surely in a couple of LinkedIn forums). The current conversation and approach, grabbed from way back, usually unsubstantiated and visibly detrimental to true change is not working. Just switching from end to beginning instead of now to then would make a difference with any approach.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management strategy, corporate change management, End State, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
