|
|
Two words this time around. Do they mean the same thing?
Here are my external definitions:
Corporate-
Anything that is owned, managed and delivered from the highest levels in the organization. Corporate crosses above functions. And you can have a corporate function itself that works for everyone (like HR).
Centralized-
Pulling resources together as a unit to save cost and overlap. Programs and initiatives that have cultural components are often centralized. Procurement is typically centralized (a big movement in the last couple of years- I wanted to write fad instead of movement…).
But what do these two words mean for employees and stakeholders? This always surprises me- as an external who owns nothing and so looks for the smartest solutions.
Corporate means dictated policy and rules.
Centralized means controlled by a corporate entity (in their minds often to the detriment of functions- what an external might call a silo).
This perspective continues to puzzle me as I work to update and dig deeper into my corporate change management entity suggestions.
Stakeholders balk at anything that is corporate and centralized. For change that visibility and ability to cross fertilize is powerful glue for a longer time period than most functions operate under. Strengthening of operations and connections on one initiative builds a foundation for the next.
In many ways that is what operations should be doing. In many ways that is what HR was expected to do (but never given the leverage or visibility to get right). Since this rarely happens there is a trust deficit. Corporate and centralized are the labels for those deficits. In the minds of stakeholders if something carries those labels it cannot and will not work.
I can see why.
The first thing organizations seem to do when they think of setting up a change entity is labeling it a “Center of Excellence”. That would be fantastic if they meant this morphing group of external and internal people was helping to coalesce all the expertise of the organization. Not so. Center of Excellence ends up being just another function- one with a confusing purpose and reason.
If you are a leader being asked to think of this because of an organic movement within your organization, or better, because you yourself know there needs to be something in your organization that look deeper into your transformations (and even, potentially, small changes) think hard about our two words. It might be a good exercise for you to ask questions of your employees and potential stakeholders about corporate versus function and central versus disparate.
You might have a trust equation to build before you can do the “implementation” piece of your change.
Centralized and corporate (and worse corporate centralization) are words with hidden meanings for stakeholders. Consider those stakeholder perspective as you think about long term transformational change (and your organizations second round in the distant future).
Technorati Tags: CCM, CEO, change awareness, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, organizational change, resistance to change, vision to work
The Economist Intelligence Unit has given us an up to date view of change management- “Leaders of Change- Companies prepare for a stronger future”.
A little background:
The study was authored by Paul Kielstra. It survey 288 executives, 42 % C-level or above from North America (44%), Western Europe (40%) and Latin America (16%). 75% of respondents came from organizations with revenue of US$1bn or above. A nice mix to give us some change statistics.
Their introduction:
“Although companies remain, as always, cost conscious, they are putting much more emphasis on growing market share and preparing for the future.
Similarly, organisations are increasingly devoting their attention to the sales and marketing functions.
This further reflects the shift in emphasis towards growth and the future and away from cost cutting.
Apparently, executives are leaving the preoccupations of surviving the downturn behind.
Yet companies are still, all too often, unable to execute change. The responsibility inevitably resides
with their leaders.
Excellent! Statistics to back up my comments for the last six months or so.
Driving forces for change:
Cost pressures topped the list averaging 50% with customer demand, regulation and market share following. Growth types of change- mergers, market opportunity and reducing complexity (nimble is crucial for fast change) were significantly lower percentages. The good news is that last years study topped 66% for cost reduction- that is improvement in the right direction.
An interesting note here- Wouldn’t “reducing complexity”, not cost cutting but creating nimbleness, help for any change? Adding a Corporate Change Management entity would fall in that category. What better time than now to do that to be ready for next year’s study that has growth initiatives topping the charts…
Which area of the corporation is getting the change initiatives?
Sales wins with 41% followed by Supply chain/Procurement (26%), IT (24%) and Finance (20%). HR, Customer Service and others fall farther down the list. Sales and marketing, that would be a first step toward growth- a good sign. Of course I am not happy to see procurement so high on the list- that will turn out to have been a problem when everyone switches to growth mode (the environment as a result is not conducive to external input that can help fuel the right growth).
The “company as a whole”, Asset optimization and “Senior management” barely make the chart. No investment in infrastructure or people. That is a trend that will need to change for growth and prosperity that filters throughout the organization.
Change in Resource Focus:
There is a trend in this study toward altered focus on resource spending. Forty seven percent of the respondents have environments where change focus was either increased or greatly increased. A VERY significant set of number, good ones, is the measure of executive participation with important change. Sixty three percent of the respondents fell in the increased or greatly increased categories.
Did 37% of the executives in the polled organizations think the status quo was doing just fine? Or, in fairness, maybe they were in no position to change anything.
Success?
So were these change initiatives successful (keeping in mind we are asking what might be the foxes in the hen house…)?
73% think that at least half of their change was successful. So much for the bandied about 70% failure rate.
Bottleneck Employees
Who is responsible for the 27% failure (and the extra percentage built into the 1/2, 3/4 responses)?
Those poor middle managers always taking the heat for everything. I admit I am a little guilty as charged for jumping on that band wagon. At times the criticism is warranted, but these numbers look like it is piled on- especially since only five percent of the respondents were willing to take the heat. Humility, refreshing, I want them for clients.
Cause of Failure
This is always revealing and this survey did not disappoint.
Lack of clearly defined milestones and objectives “won” this one easily (35% C-suite and 28% non C-suite, but still in the senior leader category). Insufficient funding, poor communication and employee resistance (the light in the tunnel) were far behind.
First look at the chart and think about who the survey respondents were. It looks as if the C-suite is pointing fingers at middle management again. What if we gave the same survey to those same senior managers, or better yet the other stakeholders? Think the numbers would tweak a little? This chart illustrates the reason why we have change management in the first place. And the questions play into the framing.
Thanks to the framing of the survey (science can be manipulated) there are no questions about descriptions of end states. Or a nice question about the presence of the owner. I am guessing these respondents think “senior management” are the implementers (not them). And insufficient funding only gets 3 and 7 percent in a nasty down economy. I find that almost impossible to believe.
But in all fairness this is good stuff. It is the right mix for the survey. It is owners answering the questions. The questions are revealing as are the answers (the top line above reveals a project management focus toward change, even at the highest levels).
This study from the Economist givess timely statistics for change. Here is to hoping the percentages sweep in favor of growth and large scale transformation for the next version.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, CEO, change failure, corporate change management, corporate strategy, Executive, organizational change, statistics, vision to work
I keep hearing about transition periods for change, the need for buy-in, the difficulty of altering status quo and I think of all the times that one thing can just replace another. Wait long enough to upgrade some technology and you can start from scratch. Get irritated enough with your processes and technology within your company and bringing in all new stuff is not much of a stretch.
As a leader decide if you, or your change practitioners, are spending too much time highlighting the thing, process, structure, even people that do not fit in to the end state. If you have a new picture in mind that does not include those things why keep calling them out? It gets to be a bad habit in the change timeline.
As a practitioner, craft that end state through your interactions with the owner, leaders and stakeholders without the present as baggage. Take the time for that. You may see that this is replacement rather than transitional change.
As a stakeholder maybe stop spending so much time trying to figure out how this new thing compares to what you have. Maybe they are really two different things? Maybe making them unconnected in time would make it easier to get to your end state version?
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
~ Richard Buckminster Fuller, American visionary, designer, architect, poet, author, and inventor
Look at the titles given Fuller:
Visionary to imagine.
Designer to craft.
Architect to build.
Poet to message.
Author to record.
Inventor to create.
Good skill set for replacement change!
Technorati Tags: change excercise, Executive, leader, resistance to change, stakeholders, vision, vision to work
There is a cycle of give and take, supply and demand, within change management that is rarely addressed and often missed. I think it starts with underlying assumptions about what a leader is and what a worker does. It mirrors, in ways, the ongoing grand argument in US politics about “job creators”. What drives the economy demand or capital? Consumers or Business Owners? Do things “trickle down” or filter up (or rise up) because of energetic demand?
I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.
Nick Hanauer, Entrepreneur (founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. in 2007)
Our change parallel:
The “job creators” for change are the owners (interesting it could be the very same people in both examples…). Demand is the energy of the stakeholders (and willingness, and perspective). By themselves through the power of their role leaders will not make change happen- they are not change accomplishers.
What will lead to the accomplishment of change is a feedback loop between those who will do the hands on work and those who envision the change. The more connection there is between stakeholders and their work to leaders and their vision the smoother goes the realization of change.
Back to our comparison:
“Trickle down” when it comes to change has been a complete failure. High paid leader (the “rich” person for this version of the analogy) gets grand idea, passes it off to the next level and waits for the spoils to spread through the organization. I can tell you from my experience whatever is supposed to have trickled down is considerably spoiled by the time it gets to the end stakeholder.
I will admit organic change has not done much better- arguably “trickle up”.
What does work is the virtuous cycle of clarity, explanation, application and energy that comes with leaders understanding demand, in the change context, and doing what they can to feed and encourage that energy and focus.
Leaders, owners of change, understand that you are not change creators- facilitators, messengers, inspirerors maybe, but not creators/accomplishers. Pay attention to that virtuous cycle that comes when stakeholders understand change, can apply it to themselves in some way and can place themselves in context with the work and the end state.
Technorati Tags: C level, CEO, change awareness, Change Strategy, engagement, Executive, job creators, leader, stakeholders, trickle down, trickle up, vision to work
- Be very clear before you start the change journey of the responsibilities of leadership- you will likely have an owner and an implementer. Partner together and pass that type of relationship down the chain. Change fails when no one is responsible and no one is accountable.
- If you are the leader be careful of the you and them perspective- stakeholders see right through a leader who is not personally connected to the change.
- Value expertise- use it, call it out and connect the relationship of talent to successful change. But don’t fake it (see point two).
- Be clear about the differences between project management and change management- PM accomplishes tasks and manages risk, CM works to connect the work of people to end states. Don’t put big picture people on the little stuff and don’t throw the big picture stuff at those managing risk.
- Double your time and dollar estimates- I mean that figuratively (although if you want to take it literally and act on that you might have some pretty successful change- by all measures). Don’t fall prey to any hucksters out there who promises to speed your time to change. It might work for the first round, but the mess will be ugly the second time.
- Change can be, and is when it is thought out and makes sense, positive- be careful of negative, resistance fighting, risk managing approaches to change. There may be times when you have to put the hammer down… that’s different.
- Enjoy the journey- you are, after all, asking that of others.
Leadership, perspective, expertise, CM and PM partnership, time, money, positive and negative must all be looked at before change can begin. Address these seven pointers and you will have a good start toward a successful change effort.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, C level, CEO, change excercise, change management strategy, Executive, organizational change, PMO, vision to work
A while back I did a tongue in cheek look at models.
Thanks to all the certification machines out there and the unemployment rate there is a flood of new, inexperienced (you can tell by the questions they ask in Forums) “change management practitioners”. It seems the first thing they want to know about are the different models to use. Big indicator that they really do not understand Change Management.
Because there are a lot of horns out there tooting as loud as possible- one that insists Change Management falls within project management (recipe for failure for anything big). I have never been one to blow my horn loud and for the sole purpose that someone listens to it (or spends money to hear it again). I shout when something does not make sense and no one seems to be saying anything (even though it is right in front of their eyes and they agree).
Well isn’t that a little like true Change Management? It is about calling out things so you can get to make sense end states. PS most of the models out there, on purpose, by design, do not do that. Most of the clients out there LOVE those kind of models because they really do not need to change much. You are not that kind of client/leader or practitioner, right?
So here (the actual model with hyperlink explanations for each piece) is the Vision to Work model:
I created it as a representation of End State Focus and Makes Sense Change. I did not, like many modelers, create a model that illustrated how change was being approached already. It amazes me how many models are created to support status quo- pretending otherwise.
Call me out marketers, but I have never touted the model specifically- the perspective yes, maybe the approach, but not the model itself. Leaders, hesitate when a consultant you are looking at whips out their model and pushes the deliverables within- they are playing to your status quo. (You do not want that, remember?)
Here is another funny thing about models. They seem to be frameworks to teach someone how to practice change management. Senior practitioners often end up creating similar paperwork (say stakeholders assessments), but it is more record keeping of the things they have found rather than a map for what to look for.
Prosci is the perfect example. A mid level practitioner could follow the model to a tee and get to the end (and I don’t mean END STATE) befuddled, confused and surprised at the failure. Anyone can sit down and draw a picture, but few of those creations end up at Christies. Anyone can go through the steps for change management; few can get to the things and people that must change for end state attainment.
The Change Management Arena has gotten a little scary this year. The emphasis on models and the strange evangelism (by, judging from their profiles, new and junior practitioners) for the companies that market the hardest is not a good sign for big transformational change. If you are a senior leader looking for a consultant be wary and ask yourself if you and your organization are REALLY capable of the change you seek. If not go with the models and the cheap rate. If so be informed and talk to those practitioners who speak with a softer voice.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, Change Design, change failure, Change Strategy, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, vision to work
Rather than, “how would my mechanic do this” – the I need it by this afternoon kind of change, think how NASA might approach this. I have no idea how NASA approaches the things they do, but I am guessing it is not by quickly (urgently?) taking a step before they talk or plan. Yet that is often how organizational change works- let’s just start, the energy will bring the stragglers along with us.
If you were the leader in charge of getting to Mars how might you go about it?
- What is Mars?
- What would be the reason to be there?
- Once there, what would that look like?
- How far away is it?
- In general how would you get there?
- What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
- Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
- Now put task within the pieces.
- Now look to see that is missing and needed.
What is Mars?
This thing you are going to needs to be defined. That way your explanations can be pinned to something. You can come up with what it is physically, with what it is metaphorically and with what it means (likely an emotional definition).
What would be the reason to be there?
Why go to Mars? Is this for scientific discovery? Is it to see if Mars might be habitable? Is it for the achievement? It could be all of the above. It will be important to know why and be able to justify and explain this end state.
Once there, what would that look like?
Having explained why, what exactly might this look like, being on Mars? Would this just be a probe? A person? People? Something else? Being able to think about what it would feel like and mean to actually get to that end state, then carry on, is important. This does not have to be pie in the sky dreaming. It can be based on what the end state means in terms of advancement, in corporate terms maybe profit, distinctness from the status quo etc.
How far away is it?
Not necessarily exact distance (corporate change is not going to have a “miles [or kilometers] equivalent) but how big is this? Dealing with the small is impossible until you understand the big. Sure many will just want to get started on some details, after all this is going to take a long time we need to start WORKING! Someone has to understand the big in order to break it up into parts. In our NASA scenario part of the measurement of distance might be by generations.
Imagine working on something at NASA that you will never see actually happen, because you will not live that long.
In general how would you get there?
There is the distance, there is the scale and there is the journey. What will carry you on this journey? In our NASA case it is some kind of spaceship (likely a huge change initiative just for that part). For a company that may be an internal vs. external discussion, a method discussion, a leadership discussion or a high level competency talk (don’t get into the weeds of specifics now!- you will never get to “Mars” if you do).
What kind of special talent, approach or perspective is that going to take?
So, in general, what is it going to take in terms of expertise to get to that end state? Will there be skill building? Will those skills need to be stacked up to create missing competencies? Are you, and your stakeholders, going to need to see things differently in some way? Will that mean you have to do things differently? Are you prepared to do those things together when necessary?
I have to give the external plug- do you really think you can see this on you own? What do you actually see when you look in the mirror?
Now divide the big-huge-long-term into pieces.
This “Mars trip” will have pieces- a spaceship, equipment, scientific tools (likely some not invented yet), fuel, operations, overhead etc. Those pieces likely fall into a general time frame with overlaps. How much of the work can be shared so as not to be duplicated. In the Mars case do you need duplication for safety?
For corporate change this may fall into your preferred approach to change- some project management framework. That may be fine, but jump back to the last paragraph first and look in the mirror, or ask your external consultant to interpret the reflection. It may be time to come up with a different set of big pieces.
Now put task within the pieces.
Either way you will then need to break these pieces down into smaller more manageable parts. Notice I have said nothing about time or dates. Please tell me you did not announce, “We will get to Mars on blank day”. Say good bye to your date right now- let alone your end state.
Now look to see what is missing and needed.
If you made it to this point you did a good job of imaging what that end state might be, even looking past it, then working back to the present. Mars is a great example because it is hard to make a current versus future approach for this journey. A lot of change is creating, inventing and growing NOT replacing.
What are you missing? As you looked at those big pieces and thought about some smaller pieces did you see that you might not have the talent to get the work done?
Can you build your own organization to fill those gaps? After all this is a really long journey, there is time to develop while some of the doable work happens.
While you are working on that competency filling, can you overlap your efforts and strengthen your everyday operations at the same time? Generations from now someone might want to go to Pluto or a place we have not found yet. You can make both the present and the future better by thinking both bigger and smaller.
As you look at your organizational change think how NASA might approach this. Big, expansive thought translated into small detail pieces, passing through the stages and the people needed to get there. Big back to small so the small can be shown to connect to the big.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, vision, vision to work
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 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
What would it look like if change, started from scratch, was done right?
- Find a senior change management consultant for a trusted advisor.
- Answer why.
- Connect to expertise.
- Engage.
- Divide the journey into parts.
- Manage time.
- Cycle your change process.
Trusted Advisor
If you are in the “pre-scratch” spot now is the time to bring in a senior external consultant. My pick, obviously, is an independent consultant ( you can always add other options later, the independent choice will give you both control and flexibility- not so with other options).
Why
Because most organizations dictate it the business case will begin to form quickly. That’s great, it is one side of the why equation. The tough side from a change standpoint is the why for people, especially for individuals and groups. Get that explanation and description clear early (and adapt as you gather feedback from stakeholders).
Expertise
Change requires people.
Helping them to participate, while often difficult, is not the most important thing about the people component.
Expertise is.
I coach young kids soccer; they love it, but we do not always win. I consult for change; people are led to engage, but they do not always know what they are doing.
From scratch determine if you will have the right people for the tasks at hand. The scratch viewpoint of this is a high level, in general picture. As you work back from the end state you will have a better idea of exactly what skills and competencies will be needed on your change journey.
As you move forward (to move backward to move forward again) always keep expertise in mind. People like to know how good they are at their work. People like to be acknowledged for their talent. This is one of the reasons people participate (I think the most powerful of the list). Use expertise in a human way to get to your business goals.
Engage
Once you have a broad view of expertise in relation to your change you can engage. Most change initiatives do not engage very well or at all early enough. There is fear of transparency and it clouds approach. Trust yourself. Do so and your stakeholders will trust you and so the change.
Now engage to gather perspective, information and gauge energy (call it “readiness” if you have to) as the foundation for your end state(s) description. Expertise should be your guiding banner (not some false inclusion approach). You value the talent you have; you engage with that talent to get to mutual goals. A great start for change from scratch.
Phases
Don’t let your PMO and project managers get their hands on the change too quickly. Doing do eliminates the chance to have change from scratch. They do a fantastic job, but, remember that expertise thing? Their expertise is in chunking up the business side of the journey and then assigning tasks (actually they tend to be detail oriented and make the tasks first then chunk them into groups). As with all competencies use in the right place at the right time.
Phases help the PMO organize and are the best time to partner CM and PM. Layering of CM within PM by phase works well (as long as you have paid attention to our previous categories and that trusted advisor is there).
Manage Time
Your PMO and PM’s will focus intensely on time and timing. From scratch change requires a different perspective of time. When you mention a moment in time, say an adoption date or for IT the date you turn off the legacy system, things change (a different meaning for the word change). “When” for change should not be addressed officially until you have things lined up clearly (and really understand your stakeholders and the end state). IT engagements especially fall apart if the drop dead date is announced too soon (having a drop dead date is not a good idea in the first place).
From scratch change must manage the use of time, the meaning of timing and the announcement of times. Be realistic about timing. Be flexible about longer time frame pieces of your change. Much like promises, do not force yourself into admitting you made a mistake. And do not encourage mistakes by forcing timing.
Change is Ongoing
And ubiquitous and always going to happen and inevitable. So why not leverage current change for that next one in the future. I don’t mean laying down a turn key process (there is no such thing no matter what that other firm may be telling you). Set up patterns in this change of exchange, interaction, use of expertise and communication that can be replicated and, ideally, culturized for positive effect now and into the future. Make some change management aspects operational.
Change Management from scratch rarely, if ever, happens. We would be living in a different business environment if it did (and I honestly thing, especially in this environment the companies that figure out how to do this will leave their competitors standing still when things pick up).
To start from scratch for change requires a trusted advisor placed contracting with the owner, realistic and transparent why descriptions, connection with expertise, engagement, understanding of time and culturization of the positives. If, as a senior leader, you can figure out how to do this…
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, CEO, change management, External Consultant, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
|
Garrett’s Linkedin profile
|
