|
|
- 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
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
This is a refrain I have heard many times from project managers and senior leaders.
IF you have a senior change management consultant that may very well be the case.
Even the deliverable averse (which, believe me is a good thing when it comes to CM) will make a table/spreadsheet/map of all of the people the change will touch. It usually does not take much to turn that into a deliverable to present, record and display. The same can be said for an “Impact Analysis”.
A CM plan can include all of the typical separate deliverables (made up by consultants who want a trail- as if PowerPoint or Excel or project gates have much to do with the ACTUAL change management). And, again, a senior consultant will be creating that information in some way on their own anyway.
Let’s dig a little into the statement though:
- Too much time
- Never really gets used
- It is pretty clear who this change is going to impact
- I actually have no idea what that is
Too much time
Some change efforts have tens of thousands of stakeholders (mine now is 4,800 with 30,000 ancillary users). It can be quite the chore to gather that data. While you are doing it people move around (a nightmare for the detail oriented PM that likes those cells filled in). Many change efforts have an org. design component right before the change (as if the redesign is not change enough).
It does take time, but when done well it pays off as a tool for dialogue. It also keeps you from missing someone in the change effort.
Never really gets used
That which is not valued does not get used (this analysis is typically the representative CM deliverable- not wanting it says something). It is the diving board. The real stuff happens after in the air.
It is pretty clear who this change is going to impact
Ah. That sounds like business, not people, talk. There is that word impact again. Impact is not just the extras that will be required of business units and middle of the organization leaders. Impact (if you insist on transferring a PM word to CM) also means the effect the change and the change process have on individuals. If their work slows down they were impacted. When one persons work slows down so does the work down the line. Those down the line likely are not part of that “clear” list of stakeholders.
I actually have no idea what that is
Fair.
Maybe because I am a change guy… I can’t imagine doing any project without some sort of a participant list. At the lowest level it is simply to figure out resources and budgetary ties.
If there is not going to be a CM consultant though, maybe avoiding this deliverable if you do not know how to leverage it, is the least damaging.
You don’t need a stakeholders analysis in the way it is often used- filled with all kinds of cells and information carried over from project management. If your effort is huge and people will be effected in subtle ways and you are creating the deliverable as much or more as a guide and plan (rather than something that has to pass a middle of the organization gate) then the Stakeholder Analysis is an excellent tool.
Technorati Tags: Change Design, change excercise, PMO, stakeholders, vision to work
A CM practitioner lucky enough to work with the smart client high in the organization who understands that transformational change must flow like water (rather than funnel through straight line project paths) has two change management roles. One is to manage the change within those straight line paths (at its core to get the highest level of adoption of the change). Two is the change management within role- that of tweaking, molding, adding to or replacing the status quo of the organization.
The “this is the way we do it” mentality coupled with the fact that change models and approaches coddle that (staying to do it the status quo way pays better than calling out those warm, fuzzy blanket obstacles) makes accomplishing the actual change exceedingly difficult. In situations where I follow that approach, brought in late to patch up, I ask the client, “did the CM talk with you early on about the structure, process and culture of your organization in the present to gauge the match (or lack of) for the end state?” The usual response? “Uh, no they were focused on assessing, making a list of the stakeholders and coming up with a change plan”.
Which is, likely, just what the client wanted to hear. Following that approach is good for keeping CM’s out of the way.
A senior CM who understands the change within has to either get in before the marginalization or be bold and lead a discussion with the client about each of the three “change within” areas.
Culture
Is the way people interact, collaborate, compete, reward and go about their work something that fits in the end state? Are you turning a collocated, report to a friend environment into a virtual, global, boss is somewhere else scenario? You will be able to carry some of your culture over, but on the whole it will change dramatically. Tactics in this example might include new employees who have been in that non-collocated work environment, best if they actually made this transition before, leveraged as “champions” for the positive aspects.
The low level approach in this category spends a lot of time communicating what this new thing is- this software is coming in and you will have to do this different etc. Not much time is spent building an understanding of what it will take to have the current culture fit within (or be discarded in lieu of) the end state culture. Culture is something that builds and is a result of the adjustments and reactions people make to specific influences. You can’t just say the culture is going to be this way. What you can do is consciously introduce influences (that would be change) and guide people toward a culture that blends with a new environment.
This is not training. It’s not leadership development. It is the CM within- managing elements along the timeline that reinforce and build to the end state.
Structure
You can have a group of stakeholders that is absolutely gung-ho about change. They are poised to give it their all. Then they get slowed down by a tool that does not work. They have a hard time finding a file they need. They can’t find anyone in the organization who understands “Y” or “X”. Resources are not available, communicating is difficult or filters exist (committees, scale up presentations, cascading communication, pyramidal hierarchies, etc.) to make good, fun, fast, effective change virtually impossible.
CM example: “We will need to put together a deck to scale this up to Leader X”. Me, “Or I could just make one slide with a supporting text document and schedule a meeting with them to explain in a way that connects us with them and the end state”… but “that is not the way we do things here”. (As I have said before, which may explain why this transformation is necessary in the first place).
Process
I have yet to see an organization that has a smooth process established for the integration of project to program to initiative to transformation (and vice versa). There is a CM within component that must, somehow, illustrate to clients places where their process is slowing things down. Likely the process people (the PMO usually) will say it is culture and structure that causes slow downs. They are ready to do things and then one of those areas or both causes the sink to stop up.
Ah, CM within.
Process should account for that. In fact if the other CM is doing a good job addressing those potential obstacles at the implementers project level it will show as steps in the change plan. The problem here is that process works best if it flows like water through a pipe rather than our earlier transformational “water that pours everywhere” (and can I might add). The CM within makes it possible to contain work flow at the process level to get things done on time and within budget.
This is the area where early front loaded change management can make a significant difference.
Consultant to client, thinking of the change management within, “You realize your organization will have to change in order to get this change to happen?”. Change Management within must, through the skill of senior practitioners, address the current culture, structure and process in order to get to end states.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management consultant, End State, Garrett Gitchell, PMO
I am seeing this strange dichotomy lately, crystal clear. CM is about making straight, clean, nothing in the way connections- from executive to line employee, from idea to end state, from directive to task. Organizations are full of filters, sieves and gatekeepers that sever those efficient ties. Does that mean the if the filter/sieve/gatekeeper obstacles were not there that CM would not be necessary?
Or put it differently- if the CM practitioner can roam free to make those quick connections would they not be an incredibly powerful resource? While this scenario may seem impossible I can say that it does happen. I have had a handful of engagements that were pretty unencumbered. The one one one connections that are so crucial to building a positive outlook toward the change are easy for a rover to make.
Having to ask permission and being measured through someone else’s filter are two ways to squash CM potential.
The only way to break those barriers is for the CM practitioner to be placed above the filters. Change Management must be at the ownership level, it must be separate from HR, it must be separate from internal communications, it must be tied closely to operations and it works best if the resource is retained. If there is any hint of lack of security for the CM their recommendations will just be more experienced versions of your own.
Ways to filter and limit CM:
- Performance Measurement
- Internal design of change process
- Change curves, urgency and death denying approaches
- Too low
- Using third parties instead of direct consultant engagement
- CM inside of HR (and calling it “Human Capital” does not count)
- Learning change from a book then bringing in a consultant to follow the steps
- Placing CM within internal communications
- CM as a “contracted” resource internal or external within each function with no umbrella entity
- Fill in you own…
Technorati Tags: change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change failure, organizational change, PMO
The project team is responsible for implementing the change management procedure.
What is wrong with this short little statement?
From the eyes of a senior change management practitioner a lot. From the eyes of a senior leader it should be the same, because adhere to this statement and you will waste some money (maybe piles of it).
Change Management is not Project Management
While CM’s will often do a lot of the project work to multi-task and add value that should not be their role. Project Management by necessity- measured by time and task- needs to have a blinder focus in order to get a straight clear path to the goals of the project. The wider the blinders the less focused the effort and the more chance of introducing risk (which next to project completion is their most important measure).
Project managers implement. They make the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Did I mention they implement? And, by the way, they are REALLY good at that.
Change managers do not implement. They guide implementation. They support implementation. They even create the frame with all the straight and corner pieces of the puzzle (that is just a task toward implementation). They gauge risk, usually measure it, but are not directly measured by managing it. They know exactly what might be risky though, which they would never see with blinders on (they only wear those blinders when they are filling in for missing project management or helping out and taking off their CM hat).
Change managers (not the internal PM’s with this title instead, the change specific resources) look at the big picture of business and people and find the smoothest path to connect both to end states. And, they are REALLY good at that.
We are talking about two different areas, two different kinds of people, two different competency sets and for the best of each, two different approaches (with some similarities).
- CM looks big and wide/PM needs to be focused.
- CM is phase focused/PM is task focused.
- CM has an emphasis on people/PM deals more with the business side.
- PM measures risk/CM measures engagement and participation.
- PM is spreadsheet heavy/CM uses pictures.
- PM reports (those spreadsheets come in handy)/CM (Adobe comes in handy here) presents.
- Etc.
Yes there is plenty of overlap, but, IMHO more from CM’s into the PM realm than the other way around.
Back to our statement-
The project team is responsible for implementing the change management procedure.
“The change management procedure” is coming up lately because of the explosion of internal organic change design. Because business in general is very project management focused (which, by the way, is one of the big reasons change management appeared in the first place) these organic designs look like something straight from a Cliff Notes on The Book of PM. The phases look the same, sometimes even have the same name, are layered over the project timeline with the same timing (focused and broad have completely different timeframes) and have a reporting level that would do a PMO proud.
Change Management is not a procedure. Doctors have procedures.
Change Management is a PROCESS. It is a process that involves people and time, usually lots of both. So anything you are doing that is called change management-C level executives take note- should be about gauging and managing time and people. The measure should be quicker, but more engaged paths to end states. You will likely as the leader be putting many of the previously mentioned Projects managed by project managers into a map/timeline/web of interacting streams of work.
Navigating that map, leading across that timeline, connecting gossamer threads of the web of interaction is the responsibility of Change Management. Don’t let that get strangled with a project focus, by multi-tasking a project manager or by thinking change management is somehow implemented in and of itself.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CCM, change awareness, change management, change management consultant, organizational change, PMO, stakeholders, vision to work
…because the management of change is the responsibility of our leaders.
…the people side is covered by Human Resources and Organizational Development.
…we train on this stuff all the time.
…change management is just about getting things done. We have a Project Management Office for that.
…speakers (and boy there are a ton of them) tell us this is all about leadership-see our first comment.
…plus the project managers are willing to do it and think it is their responsibility.
…and it is really only training and communications- we have HR, Internal Communications, Marketing and Public Relations people for that stuff.
Change Management is just not necessary.
Except…everyone admits leadership is at a premium (despite all those speakers), Human Resource tends to be transactional (arguably) which is not the “people side” approach, training is learning and practicing skills not necessarily the usage of those skills, a list of ten things to do that should have been three is not a good business strategy, leadership is a two sided coin (the leader and the people fulfilling the end states), just because someone is willing to do something does not mean they are qualified, training and communications as the core of Change Management- How’s that going for ‘ya?
I will not tell you why you/we need Change Management (I think I just did). I will tell you what Change Management is and has become.
What Change Management is
Change Management (CM) is all of those things on the list (the list credit goes to Gail Severini of Symphini) to a high level transformational change agent.
CM is also only one of those things to certain people.
It is a combination for others.
These same three sentences can also apply to initiatives- is just depends where they are in the organization and what they effect and touch.
Change Management is connecting all these areas for the most transformational of engagements, lesser levels of connection and overlap for smaller and more functional projects.
Who in your organization or the ones you watch has this role?
(if you were quick to name one of your C level leaders peek at my explanation- http://horizontalchange.com/2010/07/c-level-change-management-primer/).
The only legitimate answer is the CEO- who will quickly pass off individual responsibilities to each of his reports who will do the same- each pass weakening the CM web of connection and accountability.
There is a vacuum for making the connections between business strategy, the people who do the work and the tools/structure/process that facilitate that connection.
What Change Management has become
At the simplest level the guiding of work and task, done by people, to end states. Yes what business has been since cave people began selling flint. If we could only see and talk to the guy piling up and counting all that flint for the cave boss…
Work to people or people to work can be oil and water or it can be a smooth, satisfying cocktail. CM is learning to get the oil to mix with the water by integrating the competencies of our list (leadership, project management, soft skills, communication/messaging, etc). The bigger the initiative the more competencies CM as a person or group must use to glue together and bind the necessary pieces.
What that looks like for smart organizations is an entity that can move and morph in relation to end state requirements (both number and size). Do not fret number counters by using generalists (which high level change consultants are, the lower/smaller the need the closer they are to project managers) you are simply skimming from each of the functions in your organization- lean all over with a flexible, malleable guiding hand and the same cost structure.
Change Management is that guiding hand.
So let’s rephrase our title-
We Shouldn’t Need Change Management
Technorati Tags: C level, change management, change management consultant, corporate strategy, End State, PMO, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
This is an interesting relationship. Symbiotic, hopefully. Adversarial, sometimes. Good show, always.
When they are the same person
Usually that means layering CM into the role of the project manager. There is a conflict here. A project manager will by nature work to narrow focus to reduce risk. When focus expands it is to satisfy “the list”. They know that the broader the spread the more the risk because that brings in more People. The more time spent influencing people the less spent managing the timeline of to-do’s.
At times, less than our first combo, the CM is tasked with both roles. There is, perhaps, less of a conflict here. A change practitioner will by nature work to broaden perspective because they know the risk inherent with a narrow focus, especially when it comes to People. The more time spent influencing people the less time spent revisiting the to-do timeline.
My suggestion for both- pay more attention to the effect on people than the list itself. The list is dictated by participation. It is very difficult (hence CM as a career) to dictate participation.
When they are two people at the same horizontal
This is not always managed well in organizations. Because of the view that change is something layered over a project CM is usually added too late. CM comes first; PM comes second. If the operating horizontal is the highest the initiative needs to reach they could start close to the same time as long as the planning is CM to PM. Then the symbiosis begins. Now the PM can focus on strict management of costs, risks and tasks (and they could take or help with the role of measurement along the way). The CM can anticipate and address roadblocks in the rollout of the change (and shepard through a lot of those PM to do’s).
When they are two people at different horizontals
This is the potential adversarial combination. If one has better leverage and connection to leaders and that is not transferred to the other it becomes a battle between “this has to happen now” and “I can tell you why it will not”. When this combo is CM higher and PM lower it has a real chance of working. It is the change practitioner that needs ultimate (whatever that means for the particular initiative) exposure in order to get ahead of people risk. With that exposure and a jump start on the PM work the CM can make project management much easier for everyone involved. This can also be an excellent mentoring arrangement to help mold a version of paragraph one.
If the PM is high and the CM is thrown into the middle of the organization it is… like 90% of the engagements with CM involved. This is the status quo arrangement that makes change management an exercise in futility. It takes a knowledgeable, understanding, flexible PM to work in this arrangement. It takes a senior experienced connected to people CM to orchestrate the partnership. If there is any hint of control of the CM on the part of the PM then there will be an adversarial combination.
In general the change management piece must be guided with a broad perspective which then connects to specific moves forward on the timeline (including specific tasks). The project management piece operates best when it can dispatch talent to task and know, within reason, how long it will take to check off the to-do. If you can get that in the same person (and they will still have time left to sleep) great. Just remember-
CM early and broad.
Technorati Tags: change management, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, vision to work
Not the best of situations, but common, especially for smaller technology implementations. Don’t despair, change management can always be weaved in to project work. Here are some general areas to address-
Awareness
Of two types- illustrating the connection of individual work, task and effort to the overall goals (best end state) of the project and showing an understanding of the difficulties of change. What is the true intent of this project? Starting with effect on you, what are the things that will happen that slow your regular work down, bother you or force you to look at things differently? As the “overlapped” CM, address those in your interaction and communication.
Skills and Competencies
Put extra effort into making sure that the work for the project is given to the person best suited for the role. Each time you get a precise fit acknowledge that expertise in the individual. You can do that personally and/or include kudos in your communications.
The effect of the organization
Your company will have guidelines, measurement and processes that will inevitably get in the way of change. Each of those will be owned, have been designed by (or both) a person. They will be a stumbling block for you unless the change can make sense to them in some way. Take the time to connect and find that sensibility.
The effect of the culture
As with organizational processes there will be certain ways to get things done. Those “ways” will not be written down. If you are an employee they will be engrained in your approach to work. If you are an employee they could be invisible to you or you might acknowledge them and think they are no big deal. They are.
When it comes to culture you have to walk a fine line between getting things done (if it is change it is new and it probably does not fit into the old mold) and honoring. You will have to show how to do things differently thus skirting cultural issues. Or you will have to call out those patterns and get consensus on trying things differently. Or you will simply have to honor them and double your time frames.
If you are puzzled by this change management thing, but placed in a position to either be responsible for it or feel the need to layer it in keep this in mind in your approach-
Change means something new; new means doing things differently; guide stakeholders through that. Use yourself as a model and you will make a difference in the transition for the people involved and your business.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change awareness, change management, Communication, Examples, Garrett Gitchell, Internal Consultant, PMO, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
Stuck with CM too low and too late as a leader or practitioner?
If you are sitting in that spot you probably have little control or influence over corporate strategy, the strategy for the change rollout (if there really is one), the ownership of the initiative, the accountability of leadership tied to the initiative or overall timing. If you are interested in doing things “right” you are in for a long haul.
What you might want to try is to be influential, make a difference, in the speed and acceptance of the change. At its core that is what CM is about. So you are simply leveraging your core competency.
Some suggestions:
- Strip away extras (that suck up budget) like readiness assessments
- Focus on descriptions of a changed environment rather than end states
- Go with “because” as an answer to why (I know cringe factor there) and be helpful and available
- Communicate context to the timeline (rather than the strategic bigger picture)
- Accept that CM can be a project management add on and then practice CM (reach out to leaders, mentor, distribute supporting information to grow awareness, illustrate cross functional collaboration, etc)
Part of the reason CM is approached the way it is with most models and most organizations is because of the thrown in the middle pattern. Initially the idea of CM was to speed along projects. It had an “insertion” basis and so the gurus developed models to address that client need.
Things have changed; stakeholders get it and expect more.
Organizations made up of lots of people and lots of group think move slowly on the change scale.
I am beginning to think that to push that boat takes organic change management in the middle, with leaders, with new employees added to each and every change and operational tweak. If speed is the final measure then addressing that first and making a difference on a smaller scale may be the light for tackling the bigger, wider change as a web approach.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change awareness, change communications, Context, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, stakeholders, Value, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
