|
|
Certainly a change appropriate word.
1. the act of taking or receiving something offered.
2. favorable reception; approval; favor.
3. the act of assenting or believing: acceptance of a theory.
4. the fact or state of being accepted or acceptable.
Dictionary.com
Acceptance and change:
- THE change must be accepted at some level
- Stakeholders must accept the change (and be accepting)
- Leaders and peers must accept each other
- All of the underlying structure must be accepted
THE change must be accepted at some level
Obviously or not much will happen. Admittedly there are some changes which have little acceptance (or acceptance an elite few- elite is a nice way of putting it) like reduction in force, some mergers, downsizing, the sale of a company etc. Acceptance is either bought, leveraged, asked for (hoped for?) or gained through make sense end states.
But someone, even if only a few has to accept to move change forward.
Stakeholders must accept the change (and be accepting)
Good change, the kind that leads to other good change must be accepted by the stakeholders. Acceptance may come right after awareness or further along the timeline as more information is communicated (and the end state possibilities become clearer).
It is much easier if the stakeholders are accepting of change, either by mentality or because of previous successes. That is one reason why I push clients to understand the significance of this change and this approach for future endeavors.
From the stakeholder perspective though there is the big nasty, “I do not accept this at all, but I have no choice (my family needs to eat…)”. I suppose you can accept that nothing is ever going to go right as you are doing the tasks you are told to do.
Leaders and peers must accept each other
For good change a contract forms, or is created on purpose, between leaders and stakeholders and between peers. They accept each other for talent and they accept differences. When you have that you can have collaboration that leads to work effort, you can have mediation that finds solutions and you can have compromise. You can also have risk that gets balanced- maybe this time we do things your way, next mine (all in one basket carries risk).
All of the underlying structure must be accepted
This is a big one that often does not happen with big change. Because so little time is spent up front getting ready- the packing and repacking for the journey- there is often not much acceptance for the approach. Or there is the previous negative, “we have no choice” acceptance.
The underlying process, historic structure, new structure and communications have a strong effect on change. When I am asked what causes change to fail my answer is always structure first.
Acceptance for change is both the stakeholder side of participation and the comfort level toward the change itself.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, End State, engagement, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
This is part two for horizontal change strategy questions. Part 1 asked Consultant to Client questions.
I am assuming the client is the owner (pays for the change, is seen by stakeholders as the top executive connected to the change). Later posts will look at implementary clients and their questions.
- What has your role been for change in the past?
- Is change management a science or art?
- What tools do you use?
- Define change management
- What do you think keeps change from happening?
What has your role been for change in the past?
Depending on the type of change you are pursuing you may look for different answers to this question.
I this is a big, high, broad (truly in need of a horizontal approach) transformation you want the answer to be: facilitator, mentor, consultative support, planner, organizer, rover, “disconnected” external resource. You are looking for an external voice and perspective to help scout the path, alert you to obstacles and help to build YOUR ownership of the change.
If this is smaller horizontal change (say within a big function) the answer can be: Director of Change Management, Change Management Consultant, add your own internal monikers or the first answer. Because change is about a new status quo (no matter how big or small) I personally think you HAVE to have an external guide.
You might want to add some extra questions in about going native, were they in a contracting role (they will be much less consultative), how big/how high/ how important were the initiatives, did they work with clients who understand change, etc.
Is change management a science or art?
Perspective is crucial for change management. It guides assumptions which then dictates approach. Think of the positive people you know. Think of the negative people you know (sorry to make you do that). Which one do you want to work with you?
Those who see CM as more art than science will fall in the positive category (yes generalization). The “scientists” in the bunch not so much so. What is important is how they will be received by the stakeholders in relation to the change. Stakeholders usually feel like guinea pigs with the scientists. In fairness they may feel like they landed at a hippie retreat with the artists.
The answer you want is, “I think CM is an art practiced best by those who understands where science might fit in.”
Smart CM artists know when to use science. By definition someone with a scientific perspective must be less creative and group and lump things together to support their hypothesis (in this case that means their perspective). People, individuals, your stakeholders, see themselves as unique- that “lumping” thing does not usually go over too well.
What tools do you use?
If they are quick to answer, call for the next in line.
If they say, it depends, follow through with some more questions.
Why do you use tools? Or why that specific tool?
What is it you leverage with the use of the tool?
Is this a package of tools that follow your methodology? (If yes, consider putting that second consultant in the batting box).
What you are looking for is a consultant that uses tools to build toward the end state, not just to check off a task, to look busy or to cater to mid level leaders (they love tools and deliverables because that is how you measure their performance). An example: the ubiquitous stakeholder analysis (yes I do use versions of this tool). The stakeholder analysis is a way to see who is involved in the project, when they should be included and to what level that inclusion is realistic. To fill in all those blanks means a lot of interviewing, asking questions, explaining CM and the reason for the tool (and yes maybe a deliverable) and connecting with stakeholders.
When it comes to the tool question look for follow through. No stakeholder ever participated wholeheartedly in change because of a tool.
Define change management
You could ask this first to see how the tool/science/art perspective comes out in the explanation.
If that trio does not come out, next in line, they do not understand change management in context with the past, today and tomorrow.
The answer should have to do with end states rather than gap filling; something about management being a strange word connected to change; a sentence or two about individuals and competency; and a little about where CM is heading.
You want someone who can pull from the past, mix in their own expertise (that came from experience, study and application) and apply that to your specific scenario. (That sentence is actually what change is- history, competency, end state).
What do you think keeps change from happening?
This will be revealing.
And again it could be the first question (especially if your line of consultants to talk to is long).
If they say people, if they mention resistance, if they put blame strictly on leaders, if they miss process, structure and competency… next in line.
What keeps change from happening are all the things built in to your organization that reinforce status quo. Once those things are built, working on the people (you know those “resistors”) is putting a band-aid on a deep wound.
If they respond, “in your organization?” and then say, “it could be you”, hire them.
Designing a horizontal change strategy, especially if a change entity is to be built as part of the plan, requires a consultant with an incredibly broad experience set, and a competency set to match. That same broad strategic expert will also need an empathetic, individual, tactical perspective to help you come up with a strategy that leads you to end states and can be executed.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
The Change Management Arena is filling up with quite the mix of gladiators, observers, ringmasters and cheering crowds (or is that yelling?).
The Gladiators
These are the firmly entrenched, practiced and experienced consultants. These are the executives and leaders charging bravely (and blindly?) into the ring.
There is a small group of consultants (my measure is many hours spent online in Forums, discussion posts and blog threads) who have weathered CM’s transition from an HR thing, to OD, to change management to behavioral change management to the current and upcoming trend toward a mix of behavior and efficient business practices. These are the people who came before and lived through prescriptive approaches, change as a battle with death, false urgency and a stack of tools (most laughed at by the lions [and the gladiators themselves] in the ring for their ineffectiveness).
This small group makes themselves heard anytime comments, approaches and perspectives get prescriptive. They know full well most of those models were created more for revenue and less for effect (in consulting you are always forced to some extent to cater to client wants- change is strange since clients are usually unaware of what they need versus what they want). This small group knows how change plays out. They have seen all the combinations. Throw lions (and tigers and bears) at them and they can give you creative approaches to tackling the problem.
I have been impressed that this group, unlike the original OD gurus who are touchy-feely to the extreme, has a business sense and a holistic viewpoint that encompasses many stakeholder perspectives to get to solutions and approaches. This group trained in the trenches (although most have Masters or PhD degrees). No certifications for them (unless clients request it, then it is just a deliverable).
There is another group of gladiators, the executives. I almost said the visionaries. That is not always the case. The people who pay for the arena, get the animals shipped in, orchestrate the event and speak to those that will be the cheering throngs stop short of ACTUALLY dealing with the lions. Many are more like Halloween gladiators (not you though senior leader, right?). The actual gladiators internally are the “buck-passed-to” mid level implementers. (They are, unfortunately, swayed by the siren songs of the prescriptive marketers).
The Observers
These are the people searching for “Change Management Career Paths”. They are curious about this career that is all about people (if only it was that simple). They are intrigued by cheese, icebergs and “Making it Stick” stories. They hear the siren call of high compensation and an adoring crowd (the best are making more, yes, the bottom is dropping thanks to a flood of converted observers, created by revenue focused certification machines).
These observers bounce back and forth into discussions, or bravely start their own (sometimes with strange requests for information from the established pros) to find out what this change management thing is. I think they leave a little confused. The prescriptive marketing forces and their evangelistic followers drown out the sensible voices in the crowd.
There is a voice of reason spreading lately that is getting louder and louder and it comes from the gladiators. It is a voice for end state focus, reasonable energy and push (urgency is not the first choice of words). It is voices for change that makes sense that is easy to participate in and that has a positive future oriented perspective (with an understanding that some things do move into the end state- history is part of the change timeline).
The Ringmasters
Are everywhere.
It seems everyone wants a piece of orchestrating change. While most are focusing their attention on the gladiators and the danger in the ring others are behind the scenes supporting the show, working the political intrigue in the catacombs and rigging the event in their favor.
Our word for them today might be gatekeeper.
They are either protecting the gladiator, the executive version- no one protects the CM, or working internal politics in a way that will favor them.
Another version is the individual who sees an opportunity and creates a model or approach or, the cringe worthy word system, catered to the client (whims) and imminently sellable. Because there is a new demand for change management this version of a ringmaster is ubiquitous.
Cheering (?) Crowds
Change is everywhere and is not going away anytime soon.
There are crowds cheering it on. (They are not necessarily cheering for success- see Ringmasters above). They like to watch the gladiators perform. They snicker at the constant attempts by the ringmasters to control the show. They listen patiently to the observers with their naïve curiosity.
They cheer, they boo, they jeer.
Deep down they want the event to end with a satisfying result.
If they do not see that after a couple of visits they are unlikely to return.
A staged, prescriptive event will be much the same the next time. Without the ability to be flexible the show is boring, the best gladiators will likely be eliminated and the ringmasters will have won with the crowd, obviously,losing.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management consultant, End State
If I asked you this question: “If you could change anything what would it be”? Could you answer it?
You could and in many different ways.
And I bet you could get pretty enthused about change.
You could change the world. You could change yourself in some way. You could change the environment or your environment. You could change your friends a little. You could do some little changes on your parents. You could change your career. You could go on forever with all the exciting changes you could make.
So why is change so hard then?
There is the imagining and there is the doing.
Imagining
If you can’t imagine something I can’t imagine how you could do it. If you did not imagine it how would you know when you arrived?
Yet this happens for people- “I am going to lose weight”. It seems like a smart thing so just reach for it.
And it happens for organizations- “We need a 50% reduction in, fill in the blank.” If we focus on that number and the need we can make the change.
Being the change, like Bill Braun’s “165 pound man” is a crucial first step to getting any of those “if I could change ‘somethings’” to happen.
Doing
Sometimes doing is a plan.
You make a list. You use a project plan. You get wild filling in the cells of a spreadsheet. In a way this is part of the doing (and in a way it is part of the imagining). The planning is the transitioning to the doing.
But…
The 240 pound man did not have a plan.
He just started doing. Because he imagined the pieces necessary for the end state were clear (healthy eating, a friend and ally, meditation, exercise). Because he went beyond imaging what this this was to actually being the end state, the doing began instinctively.
For the organization this is a quick win scenario. Start to do the things that make sense and have little effect on the path to get there, the process or the other things that will be on the gathering list.
Theoretically you could start doing without imaging. It turns out that is not the same as starting and then creating a plan. Believe me I see this all the time. Start doing without imagining and you will never get to the imagining. Without the imagining there will be no end state. And really doing is the easy part…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, End State, future state, vision, vision to work
I have decided these are the two most important traits for guiding change.
Without both change does not happen. Empathy without impatience is a touchy-feely exercise in futility. Impatience without empathy is an uncomfortable clash of wills. The first is an old fashioned OD practitioner. The second an ineffective project manager.
Empathy
Change is impossible without it.
Those guiding change must connect with individuals on multiple levels in order to get back participation and task completion. I use two of the five W’s to empathize- Why and What.
Why is a high level, “how does this change and my effort connect to the organization and the future?”. It is also a low level, “really why would I do this?”. The first is a request for context and connection. The second a selfish (which is OK if that is what it takes to move the change ship) what’s in it for me.
What is a clear explanation of the tasks that individual may be asked to accomplish. For some what gets into process too. I am convinced that even the most task oriented benefit from why added to what. To often change guides go straight to what.
There are lots of different people out there each one with there own reasons for participation and effort. Empathy finds the path between perspective and work.
Impatience
Which is all well and good, except people can get pretty strange.
As can organizations (that of course are made up of tons of people acting strangely at times).
Impatience can lead the change guide to ask stronger questions, probe more deeply into motives, insist on structural or procedural changes (even if only for “this project”).
Impatience makes it easier for a change guide to work with a project manager or PMO. Impatience is the number one competency for project managers. There role is to check off tasks. They have little time to dig into motives (or hand hold).
I am finding as an external that impatience helps me to satisfy client deliverable requests. I think most of those deliverables are unnecessary. The client is measured and graded on deliverables more than results. So getting the deliverables out of the way (which requires lots of impatience for me- “when do we focus on efforts that actually get to the end state?”) gets the client in the right place. The more impatient I am to get there the quicker those deliverables get parked. We are then at the same spot- impatience rewarded.
My hints:
- Start with empathy follow with impatience (if necessary- smooth empathy sometimes avoids impatience if the end state is visible).
- Never start with impatience. You will automatically do this when you are working with a difficult person the second time around. Hey you have had practice, the empathy should be easier now…
- Use the change manager role for the empathy and the project manager for the impatience- a good cop bad cop thing. Then switch it up- empathetic project manager, impatient change consultant. It works, try it.
Empathy and impatience strung together like a word is an oxymoron. There seems to be no way they can work together, but they do.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change management consultant, change management strategy, Communication, Context, End State, engagement, resistance to change, stakeholders
This is a first and a good idea so it deserves a call out.
One of the client leaders on my current change effort is making a circle through Asia to reach out at the operational level to his function. These people are either stakeholders now for my initiative or soon will be. This leader has requested information, ideas around messaging, a mini deck to facilitate his interactions and has offered to be a change ambassador.
This is a novel idea that I think should be a consideration in any initiative.
But isn’t this the same as a Kotter “champion” you say? No. Because he has volunteered for the effort, his trip is not for this initiative (which gives him a chance to be an effective “champion”- third person perspectives are often more powerful) and he isn’t selling or representing anything. He is gathering information, making connections and putting important experts in his communication loop. He is investing and front ending for future change. Smart.
I have not put together his travelling package yet. That can go in Ambassador post two. I have a sense of what will go into it though:
- The requested mini deck with a high level overview
- Some of the visuals we have used to discuss, present and justify decisions
- Links to our Forums, FAQ’s and calendars
- A few of our sample demo recordings of the new technology
- Contact names for individual connection (and likely introduction)
In this age of virtual dial in meetings and desktop sharing collaboration good old fashioned brown bagging (especially with a global field trip) is incredibly powerful and valuable. These loops (whether done like my leader example or with the change management consultant) are the glue to get to end states.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change communications, change excercise, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Communication, End State, engagement, executive communications, horizontal change management
A question was posted on Linkedin about how to assess Actual versus Desired states. My answer:
Present to gap to future or as-is to to be or actual versus desired state perspectives and thinking lead you to compare your end state to status quo with every thought.
You are better off thinking in terms of end states and working back to see what current things fit into the new scenario. What does not needs to be addressed in some way (likely with compassion and understanding).
Many (especially big), if not most, change is not the same in the end state as the current. It is apples to oranges. When it really IS close to the same (I think it takes an outside viewpoint to decide this) then you can compare through benefits of the new.
The answer to the question, with a change of perspective, is to look for the benefits- functionality, practicality, efficiency, cost savings, simplicity, etc..
With my current initiative I have pushed (it was pretty easy because they were already doing this without knowing it) an end state way of thinking. This positive and effective perspective is moving out quickly in waves of understanding.
If I know the change makes sense at some level then I can imagine an end state (for myself or the organization). With that I can figure out what I carry into that scenario. THEN I can evaluate what gets left behind.
I picture moving, looking back at the last stray things on the floor and leaving…
Technorati Tags: End State, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, Insights, vision to work
No curves. No troughs of doom. No brutal hills to climb. No cliffs to fall off of.
I pick on all of the different versions of the same thing (I poked fun at the models), especially change curves based on Kubler-Ross. So I figured I should have my own version to hold up to ridicule.
Awareness
is the first stage of the change process. That might come from an idea, yours or someone else’s. If you are a little farther away from leadership decisions awareness may come from the socialization of the change.
Understanding
follows awareness. The second step for change is to begin to understand what it is, this change thing. Even if the change is your own idea you have to go through a process of figuring it out a little. On a bigger scale this is the first step in defining end states. It is essential that you think of the change as it will or could be then work backwards toward understanding. This is very different than the typical present to future change model.
Interpretation
If you have worked backwards in your thought and planning process to the present you should be able to interpret the change. That may have to do with your connection to the change. That may be to get high level why answers. That may be to get a sense of increased functionality or efficiency or comfort because of this potential change. This stage is about finding your spot. What does this change mean. (use WIFM if you want, I have always thought that a little selfish, but some people interpret that way).
Translation
If this is not your own change, if someone is pushing it on you a little, if the change will be a different thing in your area than has been rolled out as the change message then you will have to translate. On an organizational scale this is the stage where the idea can be turned into the work that leads to the end state.
Adaptation
Every change requires a level of adjustment- even you own chosen change. Adapting may mean learning some new things. It may mean adjusting process. It may mean working to develop new skills. You will certainly have to look at things in a different way. I personally am a life long learner. I love this stage. (I’m not sure why some people dread it, when it comes to change they get lead into not liking this stage by the change models themselves).
Improvement
If the change can clear the previous stages (ok maybe hurdles…) then improvement is a given. If that is not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow change process then what is the point? The hard part for organizational change is that there is not always improvement at the individual level. THAT kind of change might lend itself to those other droopy, droppy models.
If you absolutely have to have some curves make a roller coaster through my stages.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, Change Design, End State, horizontal change management
Organizations that have a track record of some form of change management (at Chevron my current client they call it Behavioral Change Management so IT can have change management) are enjoyable to work with. Perhaps this is a window into the future?
Here is what happens when average stakeholders “get it” (multiplied in effect when this is the case with leaders too):
- They will say, “this is a change element” and then ask how to address it.
- They will anticipate things that might slow down a project path
- Risk is both a people and a business measure
- In general, the consultant feels valued
- People, in my case, come to me before I get to them
- They ask tough questions, the kind that can only come from someone who knows what to ask
- They have higher expectations of leaders
- They have higher expectations of each other
- Project tasks can be done concurrently, because there is a comfort level around success
- They ask why more than normal
- They feed the change management consultant with benefits and positive data
- They interact through social media to wrap their arms around the “makes sense” equation
- They assume change is possible before they question it
- Which, again, makes their questions effective and to the point
- If they were on a “change curve” it would look like a line
There are many more. The point is they see the end state and work toward it, knowing they have a right to question and ask for important information.
Technorati Tags: End State, engagement, External Consultant, resistance to change, stakeholders
In the middle of big initiatives buried in the minutiae of communications and training I often ask myself, “ what little thing can I do in the middle of this that will really make a difference?”. We change agents are lucky if we can really move structure, process or culture. Sometimes it moves on its own, sometimes the change facilitates movement. Usually it is not enough to get any better than that bogus 30% success statistic.
But what little thing might work? What can be done around those organizational blocks?
Some ideas:
- An early, in person, travel circle by the change management consultant. This would make a huge difference because of the in person connection and the visibility for the consultant/change. What does a two week loop, even if around the world add to the budget? What giant difference will it make later when the change hits quicksand?
- Scattered brown bag sessions. I use “brown bag” as a generic term for the type of interaction that includes supervisory leaders and the experts that are part of the change team. The idea being that questions can be asked, information (hopefully answers) given by the person who has the answer. When done well those sessions personalize the effort and increase collaboration up, down and sideways. I say scattered because brown bags are usually part of a PR push to get “buy-in”. Scattered would mean early too. You do not get buy in when you are short of information- you get participation and interest.
- Invitations to participate in different ways. I have had a few initiatives that had their own wiki or blog. Inviting authorship for a blog post is like asking someone to learn information so they can teach. It garners a different level of connection. You can just as easily invite someone in to a Wiki conversation. It is even easier to participate there- less writing. The Wiki has the advantage of a closer to synchronous dialogue- reinforcing expertise and participation.
- Engaging operationally. I am convinced that change agents who work with the current operational structure with a mind to improvement knowing what is needed for the change, can circumvent organizational obstacles. Mentoring, working with leaders, explaining change, bucking historical approaches so people understand change as a business/people combination etc. all help to feed end states (with a good open and flexible consultant).
I’m not sure these are the little things I am grasping for though… Time to ask the stakeholders- stay tuned.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change awareness, change excercise, End State, engagement, resistance to change, stakeholders
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
