|
|
||
|
Have you every done the kid safety drill? You know, the one where you get down on the ground and crawl around looking for potential danger? Of course, kid that I am at heart, I rolled, slid and somersaulted too… The world is entirely different down there. That, for awhile anyway, is the world of a toddler.
There is a theory in quantum mechanics that it is possible the future influences the present (and possibly the past). I dug into it in a recent Discover Magazine article. And did my best to understand the true meaning for quantum mechanics, but big picture mentality that I have… I got to wondering how that might look for the change process. It could mean there are multiple versions of result and effect. Basically versions of success and failure. Successful establishment of process and an adaptation of culture to speed change if the future has anything to do with it should be the hand that pulls in the present. I re-formatted my computer yesterday and instead of using my imaged backup I chose to start from scratch. Which seeded a train of thought about Chosen Change. As individuals there are countless opportunities to choose change- jobs, hobbies, friends, networks, environment, etc all have the potential to be tweaked, molded and turned upside down. The more that is upended at once the greater the possibility of different perspective, approach and, possibly, results. While virtually impossible in most cases there are large systems that would benefit from upending chosen change- (caveat US and California viewpoint) the educational system, the health system, the legal system, the political system, fill in your own.
Or at least allowed to overstay their welcome. Elephants are big, intimidating and comforting all at once. Elephants you want on your side to protect you. Here is why they are allowed to stay in organizations-
I find that the elephant is often called out by stakeholders. Those elephants in the room are usually obvious to all. What is interesting, and an important consideration in approaching change, is that they are often valued and protected. Because when they are, an avenue for avoiding change is reinforced. The elephant will make the change impossible… and we are not going to touch the elephant (a nice circular, insular and protective argument).
As with any buzz term (employee engagement being high on the list of buzzes), group think and assumptions cloud a clear understanding of a motivated individual… Bringing your dog to work might be cool and something to brag about with your friends and running with an impassioned leader may feel good, but having your work matter and understanding why is the ultimate motivator. The owner is the executive that will foot the bill, the true buyer if external resources are used. Footing the bill in any business situation should be an indicator of responsibility. Owner means possession, acceptance of maintenance, pride, a signal of the value. Using the word in Change Management sends a message of importance. What does the word owner replace? The burned out overused and misused term “Sponsor” or worse “ Executive Sponsor”. Sponsors pay money to support something and then typically do not show up. Worse is sending a representative. Sound like some change initiatives you have seen?
It occurred to me while working on a paper for an upcoming change management conference that silos will always exist in some way. There are times when that is a good thing. Tight intact project teams Virtual organizations tasked with specific deliverables Boards of Directors (OK that one is good and bad) Transactional functions
I am potentially using the picture on the left to illustrate a change entity in an organization. The straight spokes represent functions and the circular connections illustrate project, program, initiative, transformational effort (from the inside to the outside). Change success (the accomplishment of business objectives near and long term) requires connecting work and motivation to vision/idea/change and vice-versa. That means strategy must make sense and the "make sense" must be transferred to the employees in a way they will accept. While this seems obvious I find most executives understanding it only on a surface level. If this loop of idea and work does not exist and/or is not understood then that is the first step in the process of introducing change ideas. With a clear understanding of what it takes to get things done, assuming a change idea will facilitate that process, anyone in the organization should be able to communicate an idea. There are many times in business where I watch "best practices" being repeated (and cringe). In change that happens when the practitioners get together to decide what works. The process of coming to that decision is much like the one they would use for “readiness assessments” usually based on a resistance model. If the stakeholders they ask say they resisted less as a result of the model or approach then the practitioners feel they have a best practice. And so the loop feeds itself. If you start with one assumption- in this case a resistance model- and that assumption is wrong you can never have a best practice.
Middle of the organization change tends to draw clients and consultants into an exercise in creating "engagement". If somebody likes to run they run. Good luck "engaging" someone who does not. The core problem is that most organizations do not truly have OCM (Organizational Change Management) built into their corporate strategy. So "change engagement" tends to spend time addressing symptoms rather than root causes. "Un-engagement", lack of sponsorship and hit and miss buy-in are the cough, the sneeze and the runny nose. |
||
|
Copyright © 2010 Vision to Work, Inc. - All Rights Reserved Bad Behavior has blocked 13 access attempts in the last 7 days. |
||
