|
|
It is often difficult with change to get forward motion started. I think of a giant ship floating in one spot. To get it to move the first inch requires a tremendous amount of energy. That energy is stiction.
:the force required to cause one body in contact with another to begin to move
Example: Tire quality can affect stiction at the start of an auto race.
Webster’s Dictionary
Change might be easier if you could apply actual physical force somewhere. Instead something has to be done to exert influence, energy and motivation- each of those three things can be invisible stiction.
- Influence
- Energy
- Motivation
Influence
The charisma of a leader can be enough to push the change that first inch. Internal politics, the politics of influence, can also make the push. External forces that make this change look obvious or crucial are also stiction influencers.
A good make sense explanation (after lots of gathering of expertise and message crafting) is the best influence for stiction.
Energy
Any kind, really, can goose change forward. Yes even urgency. Yes even FALSE urgency.
Stakeholder willingness to change in general is an easy tank of energy to grab from. The energy of a leader excited about their idea works too. That extra kind of energy that accompanies teamwork can move the boat farther than the first inch.
Energy that comes from stakeholders knowing where they, and their talent, fit into the change is the best.
Motivation
Is that extra level of energy. I think of motivation as stored up energy, just waiting for the opportunity to be released. Call it stationary stiction.
If you can tap into motivation you will have fuel to move far into the change process. You will need that first level of stiction to set the process in motion though. Find that force for your change.
Technorati Tags: engagement, stakeholders, stiction, urgency
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
I have seen this before, but on a recent engagement it was painfully obvious. Big change has an underlying assumption of mini-ownership of process, tasks and work effort.
Here is how the process usually plays out:
- A “sponsor” is picked either before the business case is built or after (usually from the initial team in that case).
- The sponsor is expected to reach out into functions for leadership.
- Those leaders with find, pick, nominate or coerce an initial team of “champions”.
- Those champions will be the in-person deliverers of work, task and message
- Finally the end stakeholders (“line” in some cases) will own the change and make it happen.
I have inserted a few quotation marks which means there are problems…
Sponsor ownership
The sponsor is not the owner. To have them own the change is a problem. They will not have the same level of respect as the true owner (the person responsible for the budget of the change- yes it is always one person). While likely still a high level senior leader they will not have the breadth of reach that the owner does (nor the level of influence). That can make big change tough. Big change does not work well when permission must be granted, over and over again. If you have to ask permission you do not own.
The sponsor must have a mini level of ownership, compared to the owner. Without the owner reinforcing that change will run into problems, up to and including failure.
Passing everything quickly to a sponsor by virtue of your status quo approach, passing the buck or just naiveté is a mini-ownership problem first step.
Mid level leadership
Which typically gets repeated with a pass to mid level leadership (usually Directors within functions). Mid level leadership most definitely owns the translation of the idea into work. They own an important messaging component. But if they are receiving a second pass of the baton (with no lead given from the first runner) they are starting off with an ownership/leadership disadvantage.
In my experience some of these leaders ought to be given MORE ownership because they get it, their stakeholders know and see that and things will happen if they do not have to ask permission (or do things different than the previous baton passers). There are as many leaders, in my experience, at this level, that should not be given any more ownership than is needed to make a connection to their stakeholders.
Best quote from one of these people in my career, “Having been around here for 30 years I ought to know how things are done.” Ha. And having been around here for 30 days (or maybe 30 minutes) I can tell you how things SHOULD not be done anymore…
Champions
These are the people itching to further their career. Give them anything to own and they will take it. Whether or not the first person to coin this term did this on purpose I’m not sure, but it would have been a good move if you thought change was about urgency and energy. The people who get the title champion have both. And they can often create both in others.
Or not.
You can’t just say someone is a champion of anything. Think sports. The equivalent corporate- champion-crowning is the 5 year old soccer team where EVERYONE gets a trophy, because they are ALL champions.
If you have a scenario where the owner gets it and is present, mid level leaders can have the end state make sense from their functional perspective (and that translates well into participation in a bigger picture effort) then champions are just awesome to have- especially the ones who can own and lead to pull in the last level of stakeholder.
End stakeholders
Who are ultimately the most important for change. They are the ones who will be doing something different- likely over and over and over (like typing). They must be able to own the connection of work to end state. What they do must be significant in some way. And the rewards for participation, in addition to the knowledge of connection, must be real.
There is a lot of buzz about “ownership of change” this year. It gets quotes because stakeholder ownership is a very contrived term. There are just too many times when the level of ownership on the line, at the and, where the hands on work happens, cannot be much. Looking at the organization from that vantage point I can see how hard it would be to feel ownership to anything. Roll out change as a passage of mini-ownership through multiple layers and you will likely have push back at the end.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management strategy, organizational change, resistance to change, stakeholders
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
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
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 a perfect word for change:
Definition: mental depression or apathy caused by comparison of the actual state of the world with an ideal state
Webster
“As we described the end state to the group we were all overcome with weltschmertz.”
This happens, a lot.
It is the opposite of, “no way you are going to touch my status quo with that change”.
Or something like, “looking at our actual/current state this change seems impossible”.
And my choice would be, “this is big, but it is doable and it makes sense, why do I feel this will be another round of the impossible?”.
Organizations often (and especially now as things pick up a bit in the economy) have lots of people who are ready for change. Some don’t really care what it is, just get something going here. Some would willingly jump on board for certain kinds of change. All have ideas about what should change (those ideas are often more operational than transformational, but think if you put them all together as an initiative how powerful the change would be).
I think (maybe I see through rose colored glasses) that there is more weltschmerz in organizations than change resistance. Many, many times I have met with stakeholders who are fed up with the LACK of change in their organizations. Weltschmerz weighs heavy on them.
Some pointers for “weltschmerzers”:
- Make your ideas known
- Leaders, describe end states realistically and have realistic end states
- Build flexibility into the end state
- Create multiple end states
- Stop thinking people automatically resist
- Make friends with someone in your organization that is practical and pragmatic
Use any avenue possible to clearly illustrate your ideas for change. Careful about going full bore into any organic submissions processes in your organization (weltschmerz black holes).
Leaders, spend much more time developing the end state description from both the business side and the people side. Show that you understand what this means and that a path can be laid to get there.
And show that you are willing to adapt (not concede to the naysayers but adjust the final outcome- conceding is an invitation to weltschmerz). Flexibility is essential for positive energy and participation.
The end state will be different for each person, or at least for each group. Make sure you have all of those descriptions at the ready when you start the project part of the change. Your flexibility may also give you the option of dialed back end states that still provide enough change for the champions.
People do not automatically resist. Weltschmerz is everywhere (although to be fair a resistor turned champion who falls back into their old patterns will have weltschmerz too). Don’t let yourself get caught up in models that talk about long transition processes that go from resistance to acceptance.
For individuals prone to weltschmerz because of their positively rosy view of the future find a friend who skips a little less. Go for practical and pragmatic rather than cynical and negative. I love my first breath in the morning, but have friends who can tell me, “slow down, you keep breathing that fast you are going to pass out!”.
Weltschmerz, unfortunately, is alive and well. Maybe it is time we start paying attention to those people instead of the naysayers of organizational change.
Technorati Tags: change awareness, engagement, resistance to change, stakeholders
This was a search that landed on the HorizontalChange blog.
I have spent three days thinking about it.
THE most important? Tough.
Here are some things that are in the running:
- Highest executive ownership
- External guidance
- Makes sense
- Cash
- Competency
Highest executive ownership
When I ask stakeholders what they think is the most important thing for their change, to a person, they respond with something that has to do with the connection of the top level leader to the change and the work it involves. I call this person the owner (credit to Alan Weiss- his version being the executive a consultant should contract with). The owner holds the money, the influence and the highest level visibility (yes, not necessarily the most power or the most influence).
Stakeholders expect this person to be involved, to be present, to be available and to add work effort (not just management) to the initiative. When they see the buck passed they dial back their energy. When the leader is non existent for this change they push back. When this has been a pattern for a long time (which would describe just about every organization) they expect to see a marked improvement this time around.
My ultimate consultant fantasy is to work with a leader who gets this and is willing to be consulted on approaches to leverage their gift of connection.
External guidance
Change is about tweaking, removing, replacing or redoing status quo (“the state in which” as opposed to the end state). The change appears necessary because the current state is not working in some way. It takes a very self aware person to rejigger their own status quo, let alone replace it completely. Multiply that by the number of stakeholders you have and then increase it geometrically for all of the combinations of status quo that have evolved and you have a scenario that is impossible to change on your own.
External guidance, the right kind that consults for your business and its people, is crucial for big change.
Among other things an external consultant can roam your organization to make connections and create collaboration that internals shy away from. An external can reveal all of those status quo scenarios so they can be discussed in the open. A change management consultant can anticipate the things that slow change, cost money and increase risk. An external is disconnected enough to move from long term to short term thinking in an instant. A senior version of our fertilizing outside influence can also address strategy and tactics back and forth.
Makes sense
What is the point of change if it does not make sense? And yet many, many changes do not. Sometimes they do not for just a few individuals; sometimes for groups; sometimes for the organization (see previous paragraph to at least have these called out). When change does not make sense at a lower level than corporate strategy (and assuming that strategy is defensible) it needs to be explained.
Taketh in one area and you may be able to give in another. There are many things in life that do not make much sense, but life in general is pretty cool; there are many things about change that do not make sense, but growth and improvement does.
Cash
This one will not make the cut because change is chronically under budgeted. If the money could be made available to do it right then cash would quickly rise to the “most important aspect” status.
Cash in general is pretty important. Just as important is how it is used. The balance of budget for now and budget for bigger things never seems to line up when it comes to change- likely because not a whole lot of change can take place within the yearly budget cycle of organizations (let alone some quarterly measures).
So we will say the right amount of cash spent wisely is important.
Competency
You can have ownership, some great external consulting, change that makes sense and your choice of currency to pay for the effort and then find you are way short of talent. Usually you are short of skill (easy to outsource- I always mean independent consultants when I use that word, not second language phone banks), but often you are (also) short of competencies (mid level leadership group of competencies being the most obvious).
With all the slicing and dicing of people and structure that has gone on in the last 3+ years this is VERY common. But of all of our categories this is the easiest one to overcome (see previous category- Cash).
Any of these areas could be considered “the most important aspect”. Other things like a strong PMO, good internal change approaches (example: a corporate change management entity), a clean history of previous changes or positive energy could all be added to the list.
I think the most important aspect of Change Management is the thread that sews this all together. It is the thread that strategizes; that plans; that questions; that collaborates; that looks within; that asks for perspective from outside; that understands context; that explains and that enjoys using talent for the work it produces and the accomplishment that results.
That red (or yellow or blue if you want subtlety) fiery thread that connects change, time and people- that is the most important aspect.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management strategy, Context, Garrett Gitchell, stakeholders, vision to work
One of the talking points for Change Management is (“thanks” to Kotter) “Sense of Urgency”.
It is better to focus on Sense of Purpose.
A sense of purpose has a goal in mind (ideally an end state). A sense of purpose can smoothly integrate others. A sense of purpose has a controlled forward movement. Contrast that to urgency which tends to have too many short term goals, wraps up others in a confusion of running around and moves sideways more than forward.
How would you go about building a sense of purpose?
- Define end states
- Include development
- Integrate incentives
- Relay stories
- Support with facts if possible
- Acknowledge Emotion
Define end states
Purpose builds over time. A sense of purpose moves toward something on the horizon. The horizon shortens (or at least the distance is understood) when the end state is clear. The process of defining the end state, translating that into the viewers of multiple stakeholders and then planning backwards the steps that need to be filled in is the first exercise for building a sense of purpose for change.
Include development
Long journeys are perfect for growth, skill building and development. Likely that previously defined end state requires one or all. Including development in the plan and implementation builds both individuals and the organization- it adds extra purpose above and beyond the change. What better time to develop talent than in the process of growing toward a future? In fact that real world connection often means the difference between simply training (building skills) to developing (applying those skills to varying situations).
Integrate incentives
It is possible to have purpose without incentive or reward (teachers and non- profit workers come to mind). It could be argued that purpose is stronger and more efficient when rewarded. The key or change is to have incentive truly support both the change and the individual. That order is important. Many times incentives are figured out at an individual level and then do not connect to the change. Stakeholders see right through that- especially if you have made the mistake of rewarding status quo rather than competency and task building for end states.
Relay stories
Purpose works well when shared. It also works better when improvement from something that happened before seems possible. Stories convey that. “This is what happened” illustrations help for strategy and tactics for change.
And don’t forget the stories that happen during the change. Many initiatives are years long- lots of stories to build purpose. Because of the length many initiatives rotate stakeholders, and many tasks and procedures get repeated. Stories can help make round two even more successful.
Support with facts if possible
Some develop purpose only after seeing facts that show possibility. Some like facts to illustrate they made the right decisions. Some like facts to be able to see the end state in a realistic and empirical way. Gather and use facts to build purpose. Facts don’t lie… unless they are out of context. Context is crucial for sense of purpose. Show the connection between your facts and the end state and make that connection irrefutable.
Acknowledge Emotion
And be ready for those who like to trust, who like emotion, who believe in gut feelings or who are too impatient for the time it takes to gather facts (or do not trust the gatherers).
Acknowledge resistance. And then address it to build the strongest sense of purpose you will ever get (converts are usually fanatics- that is good in our case). Acknowledge and feed excitement and energy. Positive feels light; negative feels heavy. Heavy change rarely has a sense of purpose.
Aim to convert resistance to positive energy. Feed excitement (just be careful of that urgency thing- that is a different kind of excitement).
Sense of purpose leads individuals to work together to get to end states. It is much more effective than sense of urgency and when managed well builds the organization for the next change (as well as increasing the effectiveness of the current initiative).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, change management strategy, corporate change management, Garrett Gitchell, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
