|
|
Your stakeholders are most likely frozen with eyes wide open thanks to the last couple of turbulent and less than promising years.
Think of the deer transfixed by the headlights. They are not exactly scared; they do not seem to be curious; they are spell bound. Honk the horn and they do not move. Blink the lights, the same. Turn off the lights and they stand there wondering what to do, with their attention fixated as though by a spell (one of the definitions of transfixed- here are some others http://tinyurl.com/2cn5cmq).
As a C level leader what to do?
- Acknowledge
- Sum up your organizations recent past
- Leverage the good
- Own up to the bad
- Describe the future
- Create and manage a transition period
Acknowledge
Whether or not any given individual found themselves in the glaring lights does not matter. We have all seen, heard or been touched by the nasty spell of economic downturn. That must be acknowledged. Since you, as a leader, are part of the herd too, some of your own personal examples might help. Acknowledgement does not mean a continuation of negative and pessimistic perspectives. You must ease yourself out of the headlights and look ahead.
The Past
As in the last, let’s say, two years.
Odds are you tightened the purse strings, your are lean, maybe you even had some time for retrospection and introspection on an organizational level. If you were smart you took advantage of the slowdown. Put that all together in a message and sum it up in a tidy package as if you and the organization have already moved past that spot into a positive and more profitable future.
The Good
Is most likely represented in cold numbers to show smart consolidation. Tread lightly here since most stakeholders will not see the good in anything from the recent past (unless they owned it, then they will appreciate the connection). The best way to transition from difficult situations is to look at how the time was managed. If individually or collectively as an organization you did what you could then there will be good. If you are the deer or you have let the herd stand in the road for a long time…
Own up
There are plenty of times when we do what we can and what we think is right, practical and responsible only to find in hindsight we were on the wrong track. Use that hindsight to your advantage to illustrate not what could have been but why your process got you to where you are. Doing this well will give you a foundation for process and structure improvements to tag onto initiatives tomorrow.
New End States
Your first instinct in transitioning out of yesterday and into tomorrow is probably to illustrate a clear vision. Be careful here. You are likely to articulate a vision you wish for. In between is the one you want. Better to dig into the one you need. By you I mean literally you, but also the organization and its individuals. Think and communicate in terms of practical end states. Heavily load your change management front end to come up with clear, shorter length attainable end states that have easy participation points.
Transition
The headlights were particularly glaring for the deer in your herd this time around. The car has stopped; the herd is safe. Guide them off the road slowly and smoothly. Because of the participation and engagement needed with front end change management transition is built in. The addition of inordinately positive external resources (if they also have a full quiver of empathy) can help you to time the transition period. Do not with run blindly across the road at this point. The last thing you need is for fear to turn to panic.
Every difficult situation is a leverage point for the future. The deer in the headlights is not scared, just mildly stunned. Take advantage of the fact that in the headlights, for a brief moment all is calm, centered and in the moment. The perfect foundation for positive change.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change management consultant, Change Strategy, executive communications, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, vision, vision to work
When consultants are “on the beach” (the inside term for not on client engagements) they react completely different from employees who feel close to losing their job. They dig in, retrench and create. Most consultants are itching to have a chance to build collateral, increase their thought leadership and learn. The economic crises has proved fertile ground for just that.
That collateral for you as an executive is the foundation for effective, efficient delivery of business objectives.
Consultants are by nature restless, enjoy a challenge and thrive in the most difficult of situations. Their sweet spot is to have the tools and collateral, the time to think and just the right environment of confusion (and possibly fear). They like to accomplish things that others are too slow, too scared or not qualified to tackle. When they see a clear path with all those parameters they get things done fast.
Every one of those parameters is now lined up. Consultants have had plenty of time to create, think and learn. Now they are hungry for the chance to apply. For you that means a quick start from the backward slide of the last year or so.
Before you begin dreaming of business objectives and end states finding clear, quick paths to success look closer at what the use of those resources means to your organization and your culture. Your employees are likely fearful. They now worry about their jobs and their roles (and don’t expect that to go away for a long time). An energetic consultant with little baggage and a clear focus on goals is a serious threat. The more the numbers tilt in the direction of external resources (some firms were close to 50% even before the economy tanked) the more threat there is to the culture of the organization itself. And while unfounded (IMHO) those employees may think that the externals could actually replace them.
Your warning is
that too much reliance on external resources can weaken the fabric of your organizational culture. To rely on those resources when your culture has already weathered a storm (without the camaraderie of conquering adversity) can potentially effect those initiatives that happen after the first wave of success.
Why not strive for speed and success while at the same time transitioning your employees from fear to action. Pick a consultant (or small firm- you will not get this from the big firms) who understands what needs to be mended, wants to transfer that built up collateral and knowledge and is looking for challenge rather than maximum possible revenue (hint that would be the big firm- in fact just about any with employees). You will pull your employees into the new reality, accomplish and prepare all at the same time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, Value
Companies have hoarded cash. They are lean and trim. The foot is on the throttle; the hand at the gearshift. Fear is about to switch to anticipation. Once the accelerator is pushed and the up shifting begins there will be BIG change.
Are you an executive in the drivers seat?
That little space there between the twitching fingers and the gearshift is the most appropriate place to insert high level change management. That space, from the stirrings I have seen in the last couple of months, is now.
What do you need to consider and act on to jump start the change process?
Readiness
Not my favorite term as you know if you have read previous posts. This time it fits. Because this time you will want to gauge the overall feeling of your culture. Are they ready for tires burning? Or have they been so ground down and made to be scared from the last year or so that you have some executive communicating to do? You want to look at readiness in general not for any specific initiative. And by readiness I mean the capacity to strap in for the ride. If it is not there then some core parts of the change process need to be done well and communicated to the individual level.
Strategy
If it was strong and well communicated throughout the economic turmoil then Kudos. Odds are it was a an exercise in trimming, reducing, stopping and stalling. Not a good foundation for the change process. And not a foundation for trust with new strategy to move forward. Make sure the redo makes sense, communicate and re-communicate with individual stakeholders in mind. This is the spot to build trust, calm the culture and transition from fear to anticipation.
End States
Leverage your strategy into clear, attainable, but innovative end states. Don’t apologize for the trimming, but don’t ignore it either. If the reason you have the cash stockpiles to change is your cost cutting strategy then let the change come from that. And make sure your organization knows you are moving forward because of the previous strategy.
Development
Who did you lose? Who did you keep? How much time and money do you need to now invest to build back competency and capability? You can use the change from first gear on to help with the development (a core ingredient to our approach at Vision to Work- change and develop at the same time).
Resources
Consulting will grow next year. Transitioning from fear to anticipation and action will require intense energy and motivation to get work done. That will come much faster from hungry consultants. Just make sure as the leader with the wallet you pick firms that enjoy and feel ethically that they should be teaching and developing your people for the eventual exit of the consultant (hint small firms to independent- NOT big firms).
Those consulting firms, or individuals who build a team, should be assessing your competency and leadership gaps, temporarily filling them in and guiding you to replacement (or using their peer network to actually find them for you).
You can’t gun the engine just yet. You must turn fear into action. In this environment you have change within change- call it recovery to change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, stakeholders, strategy, vision to work
There is a time frame built in to the change management process that I have found carries from client to client, transformation to transformation. This may be due to human nature, the consistency of organizational interaction or something within the change process itself. In a nutshell here is what the timing looks like-
The three month period is the time it takes to have enough information for a genuine dialogue about strategy, vision and end states. It takes this long for us, Vision to Work, Inc. to gather the right amount of information to question, affirm and coalesce reality with illusion. This period is the absolute core for transformational initiatives. I would say it is a necessity for all others, but you could shorten the timeframe (but keep the relationship timing to the other phases) if the change is functionally contained.
The second phase is the gathering of stakeholders… wagons in a circle? process. This is where the measurement and gauging of participation levels takes place. In some ways this is the (what I consider old fashioned) stakeholder analysis. It is important during this time to see the change as a big picture event that spreads over a certain area. Gauging what that area is, how fast the spread, who gets touched and to what extent, is the output at six months.
Once the end state can be defined with all its angles and it is clear what that means for the spread of effect then the lists, the timelines, the tasks can begin to be created and charted. This is the spot, assuming the first two stages were early and thorough, that the PMO can shine. The change management that needs to be integrated in their processes has been set up and can be supported. This box can be anywhere from 3 months to years in length. It is the one that can severely stretch- expectations, time, money, patience and the resources of the organization. You can forget the shorter time length if the first two stages are skipped-no matter the initiative.
And I can’t help but point out to any senior level executive who happens to read this… right HERE is typically where the CM practitioners are brought in. If you have done this in the past-OOPs.
The last box/phase is the transition to the change. It is when the, we hope, inevitability of the end state begins to become apparent, comfortable and, to those on board, is the present. For a technology implementation you could call this the Adoption phase (assuming a certain percent begin that process before it is official).
For our own thinking, and now yours, here is our model overlaid-
The output for each phase is the answer(s) to the respective “W” question. The time periods of each phase are consistent, but the importance and effect is represented by the size of the first box. It is when these time frames are crunched, or worse, when the relationships are tweaked that change runs into problems. I think I can safely extend that statement to projects and, at times, organizations as a whole.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management consultant, change management strategy, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, strategy, vision to work
This is a touchy area I realize. Let’s take a stand-outside big picture look.
+ :
- Energy
- Teamwork
- In some ways more efficient
- Can be powerful for a one shot change
- :
- Threatens leadership (I didn’t say control, that is a different discussion)
- Methodology is organic
- Creates infighting and mini silos (see previous bullet)
- Is a great example of how most change in organizations starts in the middle (of the process and the organization) with no beginning
- It rarely connects to long term strategy
Grass roots organic change can be a great thing for accomplishing a short list of objectives or a small change that has real time constraints. The energy and the shared commitment makes for teamwork which gets work done fast (this is the core scenario for efficient business change). The excitement and commitment pull more people in which can (I emphasize can because there are some negatives here too) increase collaboration horizontally. If it works it can be a great model for the middle, of the change process.
Which is my transition to the potential negatives.
There is a very real threat to the way those responsible and accountable direct work (leadership in general and potentially a threat to a single individual high up). The way the original group goes about the change process will typically do one of two things- either grab a single approach from something/someone well marketed, say a book or grab everything from everywhere and create, well, a “grass roots” methodology. If function 2 happens to be in the same situation with a different change of their own we suddenly have methodology ownership. Grass roots change (and worse change design) is reactionary.
Explaining to do I realize.
From my external viewpoint dropped into the organization at a higher level this is what I see (typically)-
The grass roots energy starts as a reaction to the fact that leadership does not have a handle on change. The organization does not have a guiding entity, group of resources and approach (I like that word better than methodology it seems more human, realistic and practical) to change that ties to strategy, energy and work. That is a vacuum combination for an attitude of doing it yourself.
Grass roots organizational energy, as I see, is typically an illustration of strategy poorly communicated or strategy non-existent (sorry harsh, how about strategy weak). This is in terms of goals to work and demands (still work) to workload. It is amazing how many times the discussions around the grass roots efforts have to do with building a strategy. Makes me wonder who will be, or is, in “charge”…
Change Management has picked up a buzz in the last couple of years. Everyone who is trying to climb internally wants to be the keeper of the design. In one organization I worked with they had no less than six separate “design of change” grass roots groups going (with three big firms and a host of independents suffering a Pavlovian reaction like dogs at a cafe). A little like many businesses competing in a new space- what follows is merger mania with the loudest (not necessarily the best) winning the race.
Tying it all back together to something that works for the organization as a whole- a horizontal approach- is a change initiative in itself (surprisingly or maybe not so, typically started at a grass roots level).
What can you learn as a leader (or a grass roots barnburner if you strayed here) from this fly on the wall post?
Nurture anything that is grass roots. In the process be realistic about why it is happening in the first place. Do not be afraid of a high level group, entity and approach that can manage the connection between you (and your high level leader peers) your stakeholders and strategy fulfilled.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, change awareness, Change Design, change management consultant, corporate strategy, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, vision to work
… and warning sign number one.
Because, for me, it is, “what do I need to know?”.
Doing before knowing is the mark of an inexperienced consultant (or the forte of a contractor). This question from a client is an indicator that some knowledge exchange between the two of us may just be the answer.
So what will I need to know?
The most important need to know is the description of the end state (not the current state, not the future state and not the black hole gap in between). There is a whole lot of why built in. This is not the why you are thinking of. It is not the “why” business case for the change (that will help in the overall description). It is not the “why we need this now” version. It is not the why we need this at this point. It is certainly not a search for justification. And it is not a question that gets a quick answer of because.
It is the why someone would be willing to participate and contribute to the effort. It is the why someone would want to be involved. It is the why the organization needs this (maybe a humanized and respectful business case). It is the why the future will be better when the end state is reached- yes a journey, yes difficult maybe, yes all of those things inherent in change- pretty and not so.
If I have marketed well in my own work , the owner of the change, the keeper of the cash, the leader the light shines on (the glaring one, not necessarily the one for the award ceremony) will be the person to open the gate for the path to the information.
The need to know will-
- Reveal the org. chart formal or hidden
- Illuminate structural flaws in the organization
- Illuminate cultural flaws in the organization
- Alert the hamsters on the wheels (which stop and look, which keep mindlessly running on the wheel?)
- Provide a broad stroke of the history of change in the organization
- Clue me in to the connection between leadership, stakeholders, vision and satisfied end states
- Provide clarity on the ability to take, give and assume responsibility and accountability in the organization
- The horizontal, vertical, diagonal and circular connections (that’s the hidden org. chart) present or not
Ok I concede this will create a list…
- A packed schedule of short interviews with a strategic mix of stakeholders.
- Somewhere in the mix of number one- a visual spider web chart of connections current, and connections needed, to first create and then get to, the end state.
- A list of the communication vehicles current (and connected to the change) and missing.
- My own secret list of movers, shakers, gatekeepers and agnostics (in general, not necessarily related to this change).
As with most clients maybe not what you were expecting?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, change awareness, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, Garrett Gitchell, Gate Keeper, horizontal change management, stakeholders, strategy, vision, vision to work
Horizontal change must have change management present from the very beginning.
The lack of this is, I think, the major reason initiatives do not get the traction they need. It is frustrating, surprising and disconcerting that almost all of the projects, programs and initiatives I see in organizations have broken this rule.
Here are some reasons-
- Historical approaches
- The insular, siloed nature of organizational work
- Internal power grabbing
- A misunderstanding (ignorance?) about what the process of change is and what it takes to guide it forward
- Organizational design and structure
Let’s take four and five together since those are the responsibility of the first horizontal. It is very hard for anything in business to work in compartments anymore. To do so excludes information, collaboration and innovation. Tasks within a bigger picture can get checked off quicker without external influences, but groups of tasks inevitably rely on input from outside the compartment.
People change, get motivated and participate much quicker and with a higher level of interest when they share work, experience and difficulties with others (especially if they are different in some way so as to provide support from a different angle).
If the structure of the organization and its work does not support this interaction it is difficult to move change anywhere but up and down a vertical plane (certainly not horizontal).
“We collaborate and share all the time, that is not a problem for us”… Really. You think so? Where is this official? (and please do not mention committees, that is a post on its own).
One, two and three have the same core problem- a linear viewpoint that sees the future roll out as a series of steps to be managed and controlled (even if that is for Human Nature). One is a force feeding, two is the building of mini great walls and three looks a little like medieval Kings, Queens and Dukes trying to kill each other off.
Front loading change with knowledgeable strategically focused practitioners can create the horizontal ties needed for success early on. Creating a change group before the big initiatives begin is better.
I can safely say, in my experience at least, 99.9% of initiatives bring in CM people too late. The practioners that have a measure of success under those constraints are truly miracle workers.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CCM, change awareness, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, corporate change management, engagement, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, strategy, Value, vision to work
The practice of Change Management (this is the “what I have seen” view) is missing a clear perspective of root causes. Admittedly finding the core of organizational difficulties, not just the work of CM practitioners but also day to day operations, is not easy, takes time and requires insight and empathy- a tall order. An order that should be filled though, because symptom chasing solves little, lays a bad path for the next go around and diminishes the ability of CM overall.
Here is an example-
A method focuses on resistance of stakeholders. It lays out a series of communications, surveys, assessments (readiness which strikes me as the silliest of terms if you are automatically expecting resistance) and pretty pictures to represent the data. The data is “interpreted” and then the practitioners follow their pattern of educating on “the change process”, “gaps” (CM methods love to include gaps), transitions (ditto for this) and the five stages (or 8 steps or 10 boxes) that stakeholders must and will adhere to/pass through to accomplish the change. Everything that is gathered and collected illustrates symptoms, results of the change difficulty.
To get anywhere and to truly be successful at the end state causes need to be addressed.
Short of me (and it is truly an uphill battle) I have never seen a practitioner who takes that information gathered (because despite its poor perspective and damaging assumptions does gather some good data- I love data as much as the next practitioner) and uses it to address the root causes that have created the symptoms that produce the “resistance” that live in the house that Jack built…(I couldn’t resist).
Very often (here’s where I would like to have some good data) strategy-poor or lack thereof-is a root cause. Equally powerful is a performance system that runs counter to the objectives of the change. Culture that has not been molded to be innovative or at least receptive to enhancement can be another stifling root cause.
Therefore the first step of any major horizontal, “transformational” (if you like that synonym) change is to look with a magnifying glass (at the first horizontal I might add- might as well start the real change from the get go) at strategy, the performance reward equation and the good and not so of the organizations culture. That view through the looking glass will illuminate symptoms before they even appear sans expensive, time consuming and often detrimental data gathering.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CCM, CEO, Change, change awareness, change communications, Change Design, change excercise, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, Communications, Context, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, stakeholders, strategy, vision, vision to work
A question from a client leveraging change management for a merger- “What is the most important thing for us to keep in mind?”.
Let’s use a sugar into coffee (or tea or water) analogy.
The coffee is the parent entity or merger; the sugar the “mergee”. The parent company protected by the strength of the cup will stay intact; the company bought will, at some point depending on the purity of the sugar, dissolve into the coffee.
The sugar people may see ruin (an old fashioned CM consultant will call this resistance- big mistake, see almost any post in this blog). The coffee people will see a sweetened cup of coffee (and fail to see it is not the same cup of coffee anymore).
From a business perspective the sweetener should add to the revenue mix in some way. The initial add though is typically an innovative, start up approach and mentality, not necessarily existing in the parent organization. That mentality, from the business side, is represented by a product or service that augments the parent companies offerings.
The dilution, the enhancement, the changes from the originals, the sweet/the bitter and all they imply, is the answer to the question.
The way to get all that to work together is to acknowledge, then define the strength of the purchased entity, the value of the addition to the parent company and the best scenario to retain the innovative strength of the purchased firm in the new packaging of the parent company.
The rub is that the parent company stakeholders must understand the cultural tie and connections of the purchased group, the sugar people. They are obviously talented and skilled and they were able to show that under a different banner. The purchased company must understand that businesses grow and with that growth they must morph into new forms- sweeter coffee can be a great thing and is not possible without the sugar.
The external change management consultant- yes, External, this would be almost impossible to do right internally (and a third party arrangement may border on internal, keep that in mind) helps the clients to create an end state that can keep the strength of the sugar and not let it get too diluted in the coffee. That strength must be a reflection of the competencies and skill of the sugar people. This acknowledgement, recognition and inclusion must eventually overpower the bonds the purchased group has to their former flag.
Anything that emphasizes the big deep cup of coffee and delegitimizes the value of a single grain of sugar is going to make a messy, foul tasting cup of coffee.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change awareness, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, End State, engagement, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, M&A, M&A Change Management, strategy, vision, vision to work
I specialize in the design of change within organizations.
Some C level executives say, “we already do that”.
Some HR people I meet say ,“that’s what we do”.
Some PMO leaders say, “that’s our role”.
Some strategy/business development leaders say, “that is integrated into all of our processes”.
Some consultants say, “there’s no market for that”.
All stakeholders say, “if only we had that here…”
Despite expertise, energy and participation of all, most organizations are missing something. They have to be since I do this (there is a market) and each of those people above disagree with one or others. The “missing” is a glue of sorts that ties the organization together horizontally.
What’s needed is a way to facilitate change, either initiatives or operational, so that everyone feels in charge/control and goals are clear and shared (see above- we already do that- then why are consultants so busy?).
When gluing things together you often need an external influence (the clamp) before you can get a strong bind. That in our case is a consultant. The bind is the behavioral changes and structural pieces left in place after that consultant leaves. If the change entity is designed well it should be possible to add external influences at any time as the clamps to tie things together. The internal work is the assembly of the pieces and the creation of the idea for change.
I have to believe that the reason this does not happen is thanks to the first five bullets. Or maybe I just need to speak a little louder?
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CCM, CEO, Change, change awareness, Change Design, change failure, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, Change Strategy, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, PMO, stakeholders, strategy, vision to work
|
|
