|
|
I got contacted by a third party today and their first question was, “do you have experience with change strategy?”.
Wow the Curse of Experience has broken!
Since 2008 experience with high and broad change has not played well to clients.There has been so much tightening and so much farming out through third parties that everything has been crunched down to tactics. Tactical change without strategy is not pretty- a lot of the change of the last three years has followed that pattern.
The curse of experience is worth thinking about because it will return. You are cursed, at times, if you are experienced because you will see beyond the parameters of the current change (and role if this is contracting). That is not comfortable for a client who has clear edges to their control.
You can be a curse as a consultant if you are all ideas and no urgency.
You are cursed in crunch environments if you feel, as you should if you are experienced, that the client owns the change you are just helping drive. Clients often, especially mid level implementers, need externals to do a lot of the work. Hence the movement toward third parties and contracting (the client feels in those situations they can tell the contracted person what to do, like an employee).
Strategy dissipates when there is no growth. Consultants and clients are forced into tactical approaches to change in non growth environments. Experience is too expensive.
And there is the spell that has been cast that makes buyers think that tactics are a lot of work and strategy is not. One is with the hands and one with the head. Both take effort.
But here is the benefit we all get from our three year experience curse- those senior consultants are now well versed in tactics. Strategy will always convert to tactics (tactics can exist without strategy… for awhile). So now we have senior, experienced consultants with three years of intense tactics under their belts.
Senior leaders, now might be the time to ask strategic questions and then ask for the translation to tactics. It is worth testing each candidate for a senior role. The curse may have mesmerized them.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, External Consultant, strategy, tactics
 CM must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Time for change management is not just a moment, a day, a week etc. for something to happen. Time is also process. Time is procedure. Time is transition. Time is flexible.
Use of Time
For your organizational change do you use time like the PMO does-likely down to the half day if not hour? Do you use time like your sales team does- by quarter and year? Do you use time like NASA does- I’m kidding, just had to run the full spectrum.
What you want to do is all of the above. Use NASA time (or something more reasonable within a generation) for long term end states. Use that sense of time for your transformational initiative (singular, please don’t tell me you are trying to do more than one at a time). Use the sales version for programs. Use the PMO version for contained projects (I say that because some projects, like IT and HR, need to spread cross functionally and need more than just the PMO) and within all project, programs, initiatives and transformation.
Keep time on your side by only setting in stone those deadline dates you know you can meet. Because your use and perspective of time says something to your stakeholders. Trust and time go together.
Meaning of Time
Time has different meaning in different contexts. The more definitive, at 10:00 on this day this will happen, the more task oriented. But also less flexible. Help your stakeholders to understand when time aligns with task, when it aligns with process and when it aligns with the future. Get them all to connect and the meaning of time can be flexible and definitive.
Announcement of Times
As soon as you announce time, unless you have pursued times meaning within your organization, you effect the change process. If that date is well thought out, backed by gathering of expertise, supported by a budget and realistic (keeping in mind people and the way they jump in and jump out of change) then announcements of time can be powerful. Live up to the date, live up to the promise and, even better, do it together as a talented organization and you will arrive at end states. And be able to do it again the next time.
Time can be about tasks, time can be about operations, time can be about long term strategy and end states. Know the difference. Communicate the difference. Leverage the difference so that when you do pick exact times your pick of time sticks. Do so a few times and you will give yourself the flexibility to have time frames. Your change will arrive just in time.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Context, organizational change, strategy
I snicker a little about this title.
It is good I left the date out- just in case it turns out NEXT year is the year of the Change Agent (at least we know it was not last year).
“The Year of the Change Agent” a post from David Armano gets the first change topic for 2012 spinning from blog to blog, discussion to discussion.
His points:
Seeds of change come from thoughts, behaviors, perception and outcome. Yes.
Why this year is the Year of the Change Agent
- Everyone is restless (in a good way)
- Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
- Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
- Change Management has left its infancy
- Positive will rule this year
Everyone is restless (in a good way)
Fear (and fear mongering), pining for the past (that never actually happened) and living in a strictly tactical short term world will either kill you or make you strong. For this year I am predicting strong. Bouncing off of negative toward strength tends to make you a little edgy. That becomes urgency at some point- the GOOD kind of urgency that invites and stimulates participation. Get some make sense change going (which gives you permission to call yourself a Change Agent) and you are likely to jump ahead of your competitors.
Companies have a TON of money stashed in the vault
Change ain’t cheap.
Luckily companies have hoarded cash over the last couple of years. Some of that will get released this year. Things will change as a result. And someone will be the agent for that.
Some intense learning, evaluating and interchange happened last year
When you park senior externals and thought leaders in an environment where hustling work likely makes no sense (like a lot of the last two years, unless you downgraded your resume and profile for junior roles) they LEARN. They read, they write, they look at competitors, they draw on every napkin they can find and then they share- first with each other and eventually with clients and customers. This year is that year of sharing.
I can feel the gates opening with discussions that bounce from one place to another. I can see it in thoughtful blog posts (it is nice to not be rushed when writing). I hear it in the way senior consultants frame their explanations.
Some thinking and learning has been happening.
Change Management has left its infancy
I said to a model-oriented-follow-the-steps-exactly consultant the other day that past models and approaches were juvenile and current thought leaders are pulling Change Management into adulthood. The exchange did not go well. Those who have clung to CM status quo (that just seems so weird, how can you be a change agents if you hold onto the past?) are retiring. Maybe not this year, but their numbers are dwindling. Hopefully the young does and bucks keep the good stuff from the past as Change Agents.
Positive will rule this year
Enough of the negative.
Positive people get picked on (been there, live there), but have you noticed they have a lot of friends? Others reach out to them, connect with them, want to partner with them.
What if we just got every third person to be more positive?
Think of the change.
This year is the year of the Change Agent because nobody likes NO change. And certainly everyone dislikes change that goes backwards. We have had a lot of the no change and a good degree of the backward kind (both meanings intended). Now it is time for some people to carry the flag as Agents of Change.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, C level, CEO, change awareness, change management, engagement, External Consultant, strategy, vision to work
At some point things will really pick up (they are slowly moving now) in terms of change roles, strategy and innovation (which is the precursor for strategy and the need for strategic resources). I think late 2012, possibly after the US elections , will be that time.
- At least for senior change practitioners I think we will see demand quickly outstrip supply. Consultants are often on one year to two year engagements now. Each time one of those engagements starts someone is off the market. The supply can run out fast.
- At that point mid level consultants are going to begin to question the need for third parties and raise their rates. When clients feel their margins hit they will look to contract directly with consultants to slow that process. At the same time third parties will begin to get squeezed and consolidate or move on to the next vacuum.
- Negative, resistance fighting change will not be popular.
- Templated change will follow strategy (or clients will be talked out of the purchase and customize their own change).
- Change management will break out of its infancy and become more sophisticated. Understanding motivators and expectations will rank high on the CM competency list.
- Change management consultants, external and internal, will be expected to mentor others.
- The differences between strategic and tactical change will be called out by thought leaders and understood by organizational leaders.
Some signs that things are changing:
- Rates are rising quickly
- Clients are asking for ASAP availability (and actually speeding up their processes to make sure they get the right talent fast)
- Old roles from 2011 are reappearing (with rates 30 – 40% higher)
- Those same roles, even with the raised rates are going unfilled
- Clients are making contacts directly with consultants
- The big consulting firms are posting, and calling about, sub contracting roles (the step that occurs before they begin to fill their stable again)
- I can vouch for a big increase in blog traffic with longer average time per visit to posts that reflect approach, cost and internal/external discussions (that always means hiring will pick up)
I could make a list of things I hope will happen in 2012, all of which would be a return to client consultant direct relationships for both contracting and partnership. I think we have lost that.
Third party (and four and five) arrangements have squeezed client and consultant. When consultants must hustle roles the instant they finish a previous engagement (because they are barely compensated more than employees [who have also had a major hit to compensation in the last few years]) there is no time for the kind of thought, education and skill building that make them so valuable. When clients must refill roles (which rarely happens in direct relationships) they spend (for the right consultant who will now charge, if they are smart, a premium for the client mistake of bringing them in late) everything they saved and more.
Constriction, sometimes euphemistically called “cost savings” eventually has significant and costly (to steal the word) effects. We will see some of those surface in 2012. If the constriction lasts longer we will begin to see an erosion in competency, innovation and ability to change smoothly and “quickly”. I am rooting for the turnabout soon.
Technorati Tags: change management, change management consultant, organizational change, strategy
This is my new term to call out in 2012 and beyond.
It is just too prevalent to ignore.
It is a tough stance to take, since those leaders are my potential clients, but it is the right stance to take for the success of change and for the individuals involved (including the leaders themselves deferrers and otherwise).
Leadership Deferral definition: The conscious effort by a high level executive to pass responsibility, accountability and work to others.
- The difference between leadership and deferral
- The effect of deferral
- Strategy and deferral
- Execution and deferral
- Organic results
The difference between leadership and deferral
A good leader knows how to guide work and pull the best out of people to get to goals. Guiding work effort is different than deferral.
Deferral is transferring things that everyone knows are the responsibility of a leader to someone else to “figure out” (and “get back to me”). Deferral is the pattern of sitting in the big chair watching the PowerPoint presentations of the deferrees. Stakeholders see right through deferral. They see fear, misguided self-confidence, a separation of leadership and work and arrogance. None of those things lands in the list of necessities for stakeholder participation in change.
A good leader is respected because they empower. Empowerment means the leader is working with his/her reports in some way (mentoring, guiding, consulting, editing etc.) not just passing the buck.
The difference seems subtle but it is obvious when there is leadership deferral. It is maybe not so obvious when there is true empowered leadership (it has many variations).
The effect of deferral
Deferral weakens leadership ability.
Weak leadership equal mistrust. Mistrust equal less participation, no participation or worse resistance. Deferral tends to spread and expand. If it exists at the highest level I find it at all levels. There is a host of problems with this,most notably that those at the lowest levels of hierarchy have a ton of work to do. Those same people when promoted will likely relish the opportunity to pass some of that work along- nasty circular pattern.
Strategy and deferral
When deferral exists strategy is weak or non existent.
This is what strategy looks like in those organizations- we figured this thing out and now you are expected to make it happen. If it does not happen it is not the weakness in our approach (or the nature of the strategy) it is your lack of EXECUTION (likely a 2012 buzzword).
Strategy should be fed by information about possibility to execute- competencies, budget, revenue potential, stakeholder willingness, history. A true leader would know and practice that assumption.
Execution and deferral
Who says leaders cannot be involved in execution- even at the highest levels?
I know as a consultant (who should not be directly responsible for execution- that is the clients responsibility) execution is always a component in any strategy. There is a component of planning, call it strategic execution, that falls on second level leaders. In well led organizations the high level leaders are visibly connected to the planning and some of the work.
Organic results
Or should this sub heading be , “Organic effects”?
When you have Leadership Deferral you will have to have effects come organically if anything is ever going to happen. When you have Leadership Deferral there will always be an organic result.
One was mentioned earlier- the PowerPoint suggestions dance. The secondary organic effect of that is proposals that show just enough to get approval with a plan and execution that is much different. The middle level leaders know full well they must own the suggestion (and get just enough approval as they go along to keep moving). Another is silo heavy approaches. Dealing with one Deferral Leader is much easier than manipulating multiple versions.
Organic work and approaches can often be effective, at a certain scale. It is my experience that those scenarios have middle level leaders who do not practice deferral- there is hope.
Leadership Deferral is beginning to be a big issue. The pattern is mirrored in politics and government around the world. It takes a certain kind of arrogance and an entitlement perspective to be one of the really “good” Deferral Leaders. That brand of selfish, non-empathetic approach does not match well with change that requires the participation of stakeholders who see right through the pattern of deferral.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, execution, Executive, strategy, vision to work
Previous parts to this series addressed: Consultant to Client questions and Client to Consultant questions.
Today’s post is about a secondary (but no less important) client, the implementary leader.
This is the person that the owner looks to for execution.
It is important to make the distinction between the two. Stakeholders know the difference and respond accordingly (“response” sometimes means do nothing at all or at least only fake doing things). The implementary leader is tasked with, and measured by, getting things done. They must make the translation(s) from strategy to work to end state. They should not be the actual client for a change management consultant- everyone knows where the money comes from.
Questions from the consultant help flesh out the perspective of this client, start to define their role in different terms than the organization may have used in the past and help them to begin understanding how they can fill their mixed strategy and execution responsibilities.
- What does this change mean to you?
- What is your role in the organization?
- What is your role in this change?
- How are you measured?
- How would you describe your relationship to the owner?
- How would you describe your relationship with stakeholders?
What does this change mean to you?
This is a wide open question that will reveal how they see this whole change thing- both THIS change and change management in general.
If they begin crafting a, “how this makes sense to me” message you have a good head start. If they spend more time explaining themselves in terms of the organization you may have some work to do. This is a role that must constantly switch from operations to strategy/change/the future. If they are not used to that pattern help will be in order.
It is helpful if their answer says something about how important this role is for their career. Change management works best when it calls out, uses and leverages the skill, strength and competencies of individual stakeholders. The best place to start that pattern is with our two clients. We could debate over which one will have the most influence. The effect has to do with stretching into uncharted territory and trust from stakeholders.
What is your role in the organization?
This always produces interesting responses.
Do they see themselves as the real leader (because the owner conveniently disappears when the going gets tough)? Are they intensely task focused with their answer? Do they give a business answer, a people answer or both?
You may not see this yet as the consultant but their answer will reveal how much they truly understand the combination of the organization, their role and the end state. Likely they will get the first and be vague on the second and third (especially the end state- rarely does anyone have a good answer the first time around).
What is your role in this change?
This will be a business answer, which is fine.
This should be something like, “I am the translator of strategy to action”; “This will require understanding and then the use of talent. It is my responsibility to tie the two together”; “This change has to make sense for each individual, it is my responsibility to find a way to have that happen”, etc.
They will need to have a clear understanding of the strength (and or weakness) of the owner. They will need to understand the change. They will need to place themselves in the stakeholders spot. Then they will need to tie that all together- that is their role.
How are you measured?
The problem is that is not what they are or will be measured on.
They will be measured by time (not a good measurement when individuals and change are involved). The faster things happen the more credit they will get. I said “things” not the change. They need to figure out (likely with the consultants help) how to satisfy the things that give them compensation, illustrate the things tied to change that it would make sense for them to be measured on and get the change to happen as smoothly and quickly as possible.
How would you describe your relationship to the owner?
Their connection to the owner is important.
It is fantastic if there is a true partnership. Stakeholders are wise and see very well. If that partnership exists and both individuals can give their own “make sense” explanation of the change then people listen, people respond and the necessary work can happen.
If they do not have a partnership then the implementary client must carry the load. Organic change does happen and can work. When that is the environment the implementary leader is the “owner”- without the cash, without the standing and without official political leverage.
How would you describe your relationship with stakeholders?
I personally like this one because it reveals this persons level of empathy.
A good answer is part human connection and part business. This role must address both. A good implementary leader is both command and control and empowering. Their relationship with the stakeholders of the this change balanced against the timeline and the list of things that need to get done will determine when they command and when they guide. If they do not understand that relationship they will likely choose the wrong approach at all the wrong times.
The implementary leader must possess and use a mixed set of skills and competencies. One minute they are strategic and the next tactical. One minute they are the visible leader the next just one of the many stakeholders. With one statement they can explain the make sense nature of the change for themselves. With one question to the stakeholder they can see if they have made the translation from strategy to action. The questions the consultant asks can reveal the implementary leaders capability and capacity or this change.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change management, engagement, Executive, External Consultant, makes sense change, strategic change management, strategy, tactical change management, tactics, vision to work
A title in a Linked in discussion forum: “Does your organization have a change plan for 2012?”.
My first reaction was that anything that can fall into a year (unless we are talking about a small organization) is more likely a project, maybe a program, but not likely large change. Plans for the next year are not change management (and I would say this type of thinking dilutes change management into two words that mean anything you want) they are operations. You could list the things that are changing. You could call out the things that might be different the next year (maybe a little mini end state). But if you are talking about the organization as a whole it is not a change plan.
Really it is tactical strategy (I know today’s oxymoron).
A change plan in the sense of this title (scrunched into a year) is a project plan for the organizations operations for the next year.
To call it otherwise makes the REAL change management difficult- yes everything has change, but why do we keep shining a light on simple operational changes and treating it like the big stuff?
My title question would be: Do you have an operational plan for 2012? with a subtitle of Does it include adjustments for small changes?
Change plans, if there is such a thing, are not for whole organizations for a set period of time. They are templates for defined initiatives that require major adjustments of perspective, work and behavior (almost always lasting more than a year).
Technorati Tags: business objectives, C level, CEO, change management, change management strategy, Change Strategy, strategy
The Perfect client does not exist.
Because of what it takes to rise in organizations (performance measures, short term perspectives, shareholders, board of directors with shareholder perspectives) this may be impossible.If there was that client an early exchange might look something like this:
This is an important change for the whole organization. I want to make sure I understand it and can explain it to stakeholders. Can you help me with that?
Yes the consultant would answer while smiling.
You are a stakeholder just like the rest. The rest need to see and feel your connection to the change, to its effects and to its benefits.
I can draw out that explanation with questions that you will get from no one else- partly because I am not hesitant to ask tough questions and no one else will see the tie between you, the change and effort by stakeholders.
Can you do the same thing with other leaders?
The same thing but different yes.
Each leader is seen in a different way. Each leader represents something unique to stakeholders. That uniqueness must also be connected to the change. Each one of those leaders must have their own explanation and their own voice (which will come out with a “perfected” explanation).
We cascade everything through our organization. Should we stick with that or try something different?
The second.
Cascading, especially for a change initiative, puts too much pressure on middle level leaders who do not have the competencies to lead change. It also quickly passes the buck for those leaders you wanted to have connected to this change. Soon everyone is doing things they are not officially responsible for while those who should be doing it flounder.
What about responsibility? Is that important?
Yes and I am glad you used responsibility instead of accountability.
Responsibility means people are “owning” the change. It likely means they understand their connection to the organization tied to the change. If they see that they will probably be able to understand stakeholder perspectives. They also will not be uncomfortable with accountability.
Should we have accountability then?
You should but not usually on an individual level.
That is what you do operationally. Change that approach to one where teams are accountable. That accountability, when you are working with change, is better at the team level. Have them be accountable to each other. At the project level make them accountable for hand offs, help them understand their importance to those before them and after them in the timeline.
What is the most important thing you can tell me before this change starts?
Budget for a high level external change management consultant now.
They should be there from the very first idea for the change.
If they do not get leaders instantly involved in dialogue, communication and interaction with early elements of the change then get a different one.
Change fails because of lack of leadership participation and understanding of change. Stakeholders see right through that deference or inability to lead (the second may bring on the other- there are a lot of weak leaders out there).
The Most Important Thing to keep in mind is that change works when it is owned by stakeholders. They understand it. They share that understanding with leaders. They want to see it happen because it Makes Sense.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, Buyer, CEO, Change Design, change failure, change management consultant, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, resistance to change, stakeholders, strategy, vision to work
This was my answer in response to this question on Linkedin a few moons ago- Sunday night reminiscing.
The clients I work with are high level executives so you would think they already know how to do this…
One of the first things I do is to have them describe the end state they will arrive at when the initiative is done, no holds barred. If they can do that I have them move backward to the current state. On the return to the present they will develop a list of risks, resource needs and a perspective on what the journey would look like. They will also start to say, “well if that appears possible, how about…”
Those who think well strategically tend to have this end state back pattern of thinking. Those who do not are like runners who forgot to train or weekend hikers- big plans to get to the top of the mountain but no guiding vision and ill equipped for the event.
The opposite of this pattern is the current state to future state. That typically begins with a list and an analysis of risk (not a gauge but actual numbers on a page realism). Step two is, inevitably, the reeling in of the future state closer and closer to the moment with a much lower level of risk.
To think strategically you have to be able to see what could be possible versus what is doable. If you can teach the difference, which I think you can, eyes open to possibility would be what you are looking for.
Here is the link to the original question:
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/management/change-management/MGM_CMG/599627-3603622
Technorati Tags: leadership, strategy, teaching, training
I know you are probably thinking of this in relation to parenting.
Not a comparison that is flattering for BCM (with apologies to those parents- I could be one for all I know). There are positive similarities too.
A helicopter parent is doing everything they can to see the whole picture from beginning to end (end state is full professional employment for the child). That is strategy. Their project plan is to map out all the steps to get to that end state. That is tactics. In between is their intuitive, intensely focused effort on catching obstacles before they happen. On the way they will manage an adaptation of behavior (the child’s, but it would help to pay attention to their own too).
They have a helicopter view and a feet-planted-on-the-ground approach. Sounds like good behavioral change management.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, change comparisons, helicopter parent, strategy, tactics
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
