|
|
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
I keep hearing about transition periods for change, the need for buy-in, the difficulty of altering status quo and I think of all the times that one thing can just replace another. Wait long enough to upgrade some technology and you can start from scratch. Get irritated enough with your processes and technology within your company and bringing in all new stuff is not much of a stretch.
As a leader decide if you, or your change practitioners, are spending too much time highlighting the thing, process, structure, even people that do not fit in to the end state. If you have a new picture in mind that does not include those things why keep calling them out? It gets to be a bad habit in the change timeline.
As a practitioner, craft that end state through your interactions with the owner, leaders and stakeholders without the present as baggage. Take the time for that. You may see that this is replacement rather than transitional change.
As a stakeholder maybe stop spending so much time trying to figure out how this new thing compares to what you have. Maybe they are really two different things? Maybe making them unconnected in time would make it easier to get to your end state version?
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
~ Richard Buckminster Fuller, American visionary, designer, architect, poet, author, and inventor
Look at the titles given Fuller:
Visionary to imagine.
Designer to craft.
Architect to build.
Poet to message.
Author to record.
Inventor to create.
Good skill set for replacement change!
Technorati Tags: change excercise, Executive, leader, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision, vision to work
There is a cycle of give and take, supply and demand, within change management that is rarely addressed and often missed. I think it starts with underlying assumptions about what a leader is and what a worker does. It mirrors, in ways, the ongoing grand argument in US politics about “job creators”. What drives the economy demand or capital? Consumers or Business Owners? Do things “trickle down” or filter up (or rise up) because of energetic demand?
I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur (founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007)
Our change parallel:
The “job creators” for change are the owners (interesting it could be the very same people in both examples…). Demand is the energy of the stakeholders (and willingness, and perspective). By themselves through the power of their role leaders will not make change happen- they are not change accomplishers.
What will lead to the accomplishment of change is a feedback loop between those who will do the hands on work and those who envision the change. The more connection there is between stakeholders and their work to leaders and their vision the smoother goes the realization of change.
Back to our comparison:
“Trickle down” when it comes to change has been a complete failure. High paid leader (the “rich” person for this version of the analogy) gets grand idea, passes it off to the next level and waits for the spoils to spread through the organization. I can tell you from my experience whatever is supposed to have trickled down is considerably spoiled by the time it gets to the end stakeholder.
I will admit organic change has not done much better- arguably “trickle up”.
What does work is the virtuous cycle of clarity, explanation, application and energy that comes with leaders understanding demand, in the change context, and doing what they can to feed and encourage that energy and focus.
Leaders, owners of change, understand that you are not change creators- facilitators, messengers, inspirerors maybe, but not creators/accomplishers. Pay attention to that virtuous cycle that comes when stakeholders understand change, can apply it to themselves in some way and can place themselves in context with the work and the end state.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, job creators, leader, stakeholders, trickle down, trickle up, vision to work
One of the things that you will not likely see on the “70% Change Failure List” is an underlying Us and Them perspective. I see this on almost all engagements, this grouping propensity seems to be one of those “Human Nature” things.
Us = Leadership or the project team or the change management consultants (in those rare cases where there is more than one) or a functional group.
Them = Everyone else or line stakeholders or the Resistors or that other function or a vague competitor (that one might be OK for building camaraderie against a common foe).
What’s wrong with Us and Them viewpoints?
- Command and control
- Exclusion
- Transparency
- Trust
- Responsibility
Command and control
The most common pairing is Leaders and Stakeholders (I almost put “vs.”). Leadership has either set up or gotten used to telling people what to do. Since that command is passed to the next level to implement “people” never has to be an actual person. Stakeholders see the disconnect.
Because of the disconnect everything must be controlled to a different degree than it would have to be if everyone was in this together. The more you control the more a “them” perspective becomes obvious. Soon it will be leaders VS. stakeholders.
Exclusion
This can come with all of our pairs, often not on purpose just in the interest of expediency. Functions exclude other functions. The change team can exclude many (they should know better!). Leaders exclude on purpose to reduce competition. Individuals exclude to retain power.
Exclusion in general is the bane of change.
Exclusion makes things confusing, unclear and can be a first step toward fear and gossip. Change does not go well with gossip and fear.
Transparency
Transparency can kill fear and stifle gossip. The opposite, which is what you get when us and them is woven into your approach, feeds fear. Complete openness is never possible in business. A higher level than exists in most organizations is. Reveal what you can at the right time. The way you reveal information, facts, data and directions can show that everyone is working together toward similar end states.
Because if you don’t you lose trust.
Without trust you will have a hard time getting the necessary work done. Signal a “them” perspective, watch now you will see this EVERYWHERE, and you have eliminated the chance for full trust. If they are them then you, already, do not trust. Why should they?
Responsibility
When there is an us and them perspective responsibility gets passed from one group to the next, or one person to the next. Often the us group is doing the thinking and the planning while the them group is supposed to just listen to orders and then work their you-know-what’s off.
This creates a “you-think-you-know-everything” view. If separation exists between stakeholder and some other group it will feel condescending to those tasked with the work.
If the shelves aren’t stocked or the cash registers aren’t manned, or the data is not entered or the code is not written or the customer is not cared for, there is no business and so there will be no change. Those most responsible, really, are the line stakeholders- they are most often the “them”.
It is very easy to fall into an Us and Them perspective. Working teams do that with stakeholders, leaders do it with “followers” and change practitioners do it with those they are supposed to be working with. Watch yourself and look closely at your model. Do you have us and them embedded to the point where it may feel like us VS. them to some?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, engagement, Executive, resistance to change, stakeholders
- Be very clear before you start the change journey of the responsibilities of leadership- you will likely have an owner and an implementer. Partner together and pass that type of relationship down the chain. Change fails when no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
- If you are the leader be careful of the you and them perspective- stakeholders see right through a leader who is not personally connected to the change.
- Value expertise- use it, call it out and connect the relationship of talent to successful change. But don’t fake it (see point two).
- Be clear about the differences between project management and change management- PM accomplishes tasks and manages risk, CM works to connect the work of people to end states. Don’t put big picture people on the little stuff and don’t throw the big picture stuff at those managing risk.
- Double your time and dollar estimates- I mean that figuratively (although if you want to take it literally and act on that you might have some pretty successful change- by all measures). Don’t fall prey to any hucksters out there who promises to speed your time to change. It might work for the first round, but the mess will be ugly the second time.
- Change can be, and is when it is thought out and makes sense, positive- be careful of negative, resistance fighting, risk managing approaches to change. There may be times when you have to put the hammer down… that’s different.
- Enjoy the journey- you are, after all, asking that of others.
Leadership, perspective, expertise, CM and PM partnership, time, money, positive and negative must all be looked at before change can begin. Address these seven pointers and you will have a good start toward a successful change effort.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change excercise, change management strategy, Executive, organizational change, PMO, vision to work
What exactly do we see when we look in the mirror? If someone stood next to us would they see the same thing?
Senior leader, what if you stood next to a stakeholder and looked in the mirror? Same reflection?
What if it is the change standing in front of the mirror? How many different reflections would that be?
You contract with a senior consultant for a different interpretation of the reflections that come your way. You build that relationship to trusted advisor to help adjust your interpretation of your reflection.
A good consultant will know what too say, which reflection differences to address and when.
A good change management consultant placed high with the owner knows which reflections to encourage for you and for the change in general. They sometimes and often conflict. You work with the external so you will address that conflict. Acknowledging and addressing conflict is a core competency for leadership and one difficult to manage alone.
That consultant will be able to see things broad and into the future that for you, with your narrow field of vision, will not appear in that mirror. They have likely gone through many interpretations of different reflections and honed their skill in explaining and addressing disparity. Odds are also pretty good they have done that for themselves (and even have their own trusted advisor).
The greatest disparity I see for this metaphor is the stakeholder reflection vs. the leaders image, both for the leader and for the change. Leaders have high expectations and often get away with pushing their own reflection. One of the biggest roadblocks to change is this disconnect between what employees see (and feel) and what the senior leaders version is. Humility is important here. Contracting with an external is your first humble move. It will pay off when everyone looks back in the mirror later.
What you see in the mirror and the image others receive is not likely the same. An external consultant can help line them up so leaders and stakeholders can work together.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management consultant, Executive, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders
Trusted advisor explored one part of the equation.
Trust takes at least two people.
The trust summary for change management consulting is not complete without exploring the role of Trusted Partner.
First disclosure: I feel like I have had some harsh critique of leadership and leaders lately. The economy and the selfish patterns in society the last 15+ years have bred these problems. I honestly think people are inherently good and can be trusted. Environments that make it easy to be selfish and greedy quickly wear down the potential for trust.
Trusted Partner
A trusted partner must understand that business works when individuals have a chance to use their talent and skills; individuals enjoy work when business leverages their capability for gain (which creates profit for all). Change is a people/business partnership. Too much emphasis on either side of this pairing will erode trust.
When I am evaluating clients my list of trust includes:
- Their visibility in the organization
- Their track record
- Their demeanor
- Their spot on the org. chart
Their visibility in the organization
What does the potential partner think those in the organization see and say about them? If what I hear from stakeholders matches closely with what the leader says trust is likely.
Do they like to take charge and get credit for it? Do they transfer that perspective to the management of others? A leader, I think, should have balance of confidence and humility. Confidence helps with decision making; humility is the foundation for empowerment.
Their track record
What have they done in terms of leadership and how much of that was change (and how big was the change)? An aspect of trust for me personally is how well someone learns. To be a Trusted Partner a client must be able to stretch, accept certain things and try others. Without that I cannot be a Trusted Advisor- more like a trusted contractor (lower case intentional).
They do not have to bring a successful track record to the table. They rose to where they are, there is a reason for that. Mistakes and/or things that could be called not successful can still accomplish a lot on the people side. There is also lessons to be learned for the business side.
A leader ready to look at the past bad and good and learn from it for the future can be trusted (and can be consulted to and partnered with).
Their demeanor
Personality is probably impossible to change. Demeanor has some flex. Willingness to understand and listen to others in order to be successful and improve is a quality for trust.
If a potential client has a demeanor that I am comfortable with trust begins early. For me respect can overweigh a lot of things, demeanor being one of them. If this leader has done things for business and for people that are commendable demeanor becomes secondary. In fact if they have been strong for one side of the equation and are asking for help with the other we have an excellent start for a trusted partnership.
Their spot on the org. chart
Trust, for me, here has to do with the leverage and power they really have compared to where they think they are (or should be) and where they ACTUALLY are on the org. chart.
If they are being overpowered for their position that says something (not always bad- those I have considered excellent people leaders are often overpowered by the heavy business side/greedy competition). If they are not leveraging their spot on the chart that says something else.
If they can be shown where they are, where they should be and where others see them and then look to improve that I personally can trust them.
Those are my little consulting measures. What about our previous trust list from this perspective? My gauge there has as much to do with trust about the initiative as it does about the person I might contract/partner with.
The list of bullets from the trust post:
- integrity
- strength
- ability
- surety
- charisma
- presence
Integrity
Will they be willing to do things after consultation that they will have to stand by? Are they bold enough and willing to take the risk of being checked on whether they do what they say they will?
Strength
They have to have some kind of strength to have risen to where they are. What is it? Does that strength fit the environment/end state they are going to work toward? Are they strong enough to adapt? It can often be important to gauge what they see as strong in others. Again does that line up with the new scenario off in the future?
Ability
Is all this even possible? Do they have the ability and have they built that in others? If not trust will have to be there to absorb the back and forth of what needs to be built and what does not. If there ability is short they may not understand what is needed. A Trusted Partner would be able to make the leap of understanding necessary.
Surety
If they have no connection to the money and most of the time if they are not the owner then they cannot be a Trusted Partner as least for the larger scale change. They can be at a scaled down tactical level though.
If they are the owner like our trust explanation, have they provided enough surety for this change to be possible? We are talking about currency at this point, but what about the currency of their own? How much of themselves are they willing to invest (in both the change and the trusted partnership)?
Charisma
Will people follow this person? Because they trust them or blindly?
Many a founder CEO has a bit of a cult following. The loyal lemmings tend to follow them over the cliff when the organization gets to big for the founders ability. Still, not too worry, the lemmings will follow just as quickly when the leader builds his/her ability and constructs change that makes sense.
And charisma is not really necessary for trust or change anyway (it is just seasoning).
Presence
Are they visible in the organization?
It is hard to trust someone who hides out. It is hard to trust someone who passes the buck. It is hard to trust someone who barks orders from the darkness.
But that too can change. There are many quiet leaders out there. I often trust that presence can be felt through others. Sometimes that is the way it should be for the change to happen.
Trust is a two way street when it comes to consulting. On one side is the Advisor on the other the Partner. Trust is the spot in the middle where they meet. A trusted partnership happens when both parties can go back and forth across the line.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, change management consultant, corporate change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, organizational change, vision to work
 If this is the year of the Change Agent then it is likely to also be the year for Change Management Snake Oil salesmen. Yes completely sexist, I do not think I have ever met a women selling snake oil.
To be fair those pushing dicey change approaches aren’t actually delivering the fix in a bottle, but the promises often sound that simple.
It often seems everyone wants to be a Change Agent. Those “selling the oil” seem to think it takes one of two things: pseudo certification or having been a stakeholder during change.
The first typically creates someone trained for methods that were derived from interviewing those very people who led change. Status quo approaches creating a training program to be spread to many others (more for revenue than effective change management).
The second is a little of the same with a loud voice behind it.
If I were a client and a consultant (especially a newly minted one) dangled the elixir in front of me I would want to know where they had been placed for previous engagements, how long they were there (long is not necessarily good) and when they arrived. I would also want to know what kind of education was presented to clients to be able to get those roles. And I would want to know about any small things that built on this foundation- training roles, management roles, internal roles, big consulting firm roles etc.
Changes are not poured out of a bottle.
As a leader do not fall prey to the traveling salesman with the flashy cure.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, CEO, certification, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, training
This is my new term to call out in 2012 and beyond.
It is just too prevalent to ignore.
It is a tough stance to take, since those leaders are my potential clients, but it is the right stance to take for the success of change and for the individuals involved (including the leaders themselves deferrers and otherwise).
Leadership Deferral definition: The conscious effort by a high level executive to pass responsibility, accountability and work to others.
- The difference between leadership and deferral
- The effect of deferral
- Strategy and deferral
- Execution and deferral
- Organic results
The difference between leadership and deferral
A good leader knows how to guide work and pull the best out of people to get to goals. Guiding work effort is different than deferral.
Deferral is transferring things that everyone knows are the responsibility of a leader to someone else to “figure out” (and “get back to me”). Deferral is the pattern of sitting in the big chair watching the PowerPoint presentations of the deferrees. Stakeholders see right through deferral. They see fear, misguided self-confidence, a separation of leadership and work and arrogance. None of those things lands in the list of necessities for stakeholder participation in change.
A good leader is respected because they empower. Empowerment means the leader is working with his/her reports in some way (mentoring, guiding, consulting, editing etc.) not just passing the buck.
The difference seems subtle but it is obvious when there is leadership deferral. It is maybe not so obvious when there is true empowered leadership (it has many variations).
The effect of deferral
Deferral weakens leadership ability.
Weak leadership equal mistrust. Mistrust equal less participation, no participation or worse resistance. Deferral tends to spread and expand. If it exists at the highest level I find it at all levels. There is a host of problems with this,most notably that those at the lowest levels of hierarchy have a ton of work to do. Those same people when promoted will likely relish the opportunity to pass some of that work along- nasty circular pattern.
Strategy and deferral
When deferral exists strategy is weak or non existent.
This is what strategy looks like in those organizations- we figured this thing out and now you are expected to make it happen. If it does not happen it is not the weakness in our approach (or the nature of the strategy) it is your lack of EXECUTION (likely a 2012 buzzword).
Strategy should be fed by information about possibility to execute- competencies, budget, revenue potential, stakeholder willingness, history. A true leader would know and practice that assumption.
Execution and deferral
Who says leaders cannot be involved in execution- even at the highest levels?
I know as a consultant (who should not be directly responsible for execution- that is the clients responsibility) execution is always a component in any strategy. There is a component of planning, call it strategic execution, that falls on second level leaders. In well led organizations the high level leaders are visibly connected to the planning and some of the work.
Organic results
Or should this sub heading be , “Organic effects”?
When you have Leadership Deferral you will have to have effects come organically if anything is ever going to happen. When you have Leadership Deferral there will always be an organic result.
One was mentioned earlier- the PowerPoint suggestions dance. The secondary organic effect of that is proposals that show just enough to get approval with a plan and execution that is much different. The middle level leaders know full well they must own the suggestion (and get just enough approval as they go along to keep moving). Another is silo heavy approaches. Dealing with one Deferral Leader is much easier than manipulating multiple versions.
Organic work and approaches can often be effective, at a certain scale. It is my experience that those scenarios have middle level leaders who do not practice deferral- there is hope.
Leadership Deferral is beginning to be a big issue. The pattern is mirrored in politics and government around the world. It takes a certain kind of arrogance and an entitlement perspective to be one of the really “good” Deferral Leaders. That brand of selfish, non-empathetic approach does not match well with change that requires the participation of stakeholders who see right through the pattern of deferral.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, execution, Executive, strategy, vision to work
Previous parts to this series addressed: Consultant to Client questions and Client to Consultant questions.
Today’s post is about a secondary (but no less important) client, the implementary leader.
This is the person that the owner looks to for execution.
It is important to make the distinction between the two. Stakeholders know the difference and respond accordingly (“response” sometimes means do nothing at all or at least only fake doing things). The implementary leader is tasked with, and measured by, getting things done. They must make the translation(s) from strategy to work to end state. They should not be the actual client for a change management consultant- everyone knows where the money comes from.
Questions from the consultant help flesh out the perspective of this client, start to define their role in different terms than the organization may have used in the past and help them to begin understanding how they can fill their mixed strategy and execution responsibilities.
- What does this change mean to you?
- What is your role in the organization?
- What is your role in this change?
- How are you measured?
- How would you describe your relationship to the owner?
- How would you describe your relationship with stakeholders?
What does this change mean to you?
This is a wide open question that will reveal how they see this whole change thing- both THIS change and change management in general.
If they begin crafting a, “how this makes sense to me” message you have a good head start. If they spend more time explaining themselves in terms of the organization you may have some work to do. This is a role that must constantly switch from operations to strategy/change/the future. If they are not used to that pattern help will be in order.
It is helpful if their answer says something about how important this role is for their career. Change management works best when it calls out, uses and leverages the skill, strength and competencies of individual stakeholders. The best place to start that pattern is with our two clients. We could debate over which one will have the most influence. The effect has to do with stretching into uncharted territory and trust from stakeholders.
What is your role in the organization?
This always produces interesting responses.
Do they see themselves as the real leader (because the owner conveniently disappears when the going gets tough)? Are they intensely task focused with their answer? Do they give a business answer, a people answer or both?
You may not see this yet as the consultant but their answer will reveal how much they truly understand the combination of the organization, their role and the end state. Likely they will get the first and be vague on the second and third (especially the end state- rarely does anyone have a good answer the first time around).
What is your role in this change?
This will be a business answer, which is fine.
This should be something like, “I am the translator of strategy to action”; “This will require understanding and then the use of talent. It is my responsibility to tie the two together”; “This change has to make sense for each individual, it is my responsibility to find a way to have that happen”, etc.
They will need to have a clear understanding of the strength (and or weakness) of the owner. They will need to understand the change. They will need to place themselves in the stakeholders spot. Then they will need to tie that all together- that is their role.
How are you measured?
The problem is that is not what they are or will be measured on.
They will be measured by time (not a good measurement when individuals and change are involved). The faster things happen the more credit they will get. I said “things” not the change. They need to figure out (likely with the consultants help) how to satisfy the things that give them compensation, illustrate the things tied to change that it would make sense for them to be measured on and get the change to happen as smoothly and quickly as possible.
How would you describe your relationship to the owner?
Their connection to the owner is important.
It is fantastic if there is a true partnership. Stakeholders are wise and see very well. If that partnership exists and both individuals can give their own “make sense” explanation of the change then people listen, people respond and the necessary work can happen.
If they do not have a partnership then the implementary client must carry the load. Organic change does happen and can work. When that is the environment the implementary leader is the “owner”- without the cash, without the standing and without official political leverage.
How would you describe your relationship with stakeholders?
I personally like this one because it reveals this persons level of empathy.
A good answer is part human connection and part business. This role must address both. A good implementary leader is both command and control and empowering. Their relationship with the stakeholders of the this change balanced against the timeline and the list of things that need to get done will determine when they command and when they guide. If they do not understand that relationship they will likely choose the wrong approach at all the wrong times.
The implementary leader must possess and use a mixed set of skills and competencies. One minute they are strategic and the next tactical. One minute they are the visible leader the next just one of the many stakeholders. With one statement they can explain the make sense nature of the change for themselves. With one question to the stakeholder they can see if they have made the translation from strategy to action. The questions the consultant asks can reveal the implementary leaders capability and capacity or this change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, makes sense change, strategic change management, strategy, tactical change management, tactics, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
