Horizontal Change Management

Perspective- The People Side of Change

ggitchell — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:25:39 +0000

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.

The people side of change has danger (real or imagined), hidden obstacles, an intense right in front focus, movement similar to a crawl (for its snail like pace) and an overall obliviousness to the presence of anything on this list. A good change agent does multiple versions of the hidden danger exercise. He/she must look from the perspective of a distracted and singularly focused child and from the adult who sees clearly the danger. Somewhere in between is the positive, practical, realistic description of the environment. There could very well be a different description for each person/stakeholder. The exercise might even change for a group of stakeholders. Think about a group of children crawling on that floor-different environment, especially if a few get ahead and stand up…

In keeping with our analogy-

If you think you will be able to corral that kid/stakeholder away from the danger (distract, keep busy, drag, pull, push, order…) then you are either very confident in your abilities or opening yourself up for the result. In the change process that result is projects that get delayed (should have fixed that outlet first), quality that deteriorates, stubbornness (which either increases the danger or leads to apathy-yes even with that kid on the ground) and rebellion (obvious with the kid, subtle and detrimental to the organization and culture for the stakeholder).

As the executive for an initiative you would do well to run this exercise of perspective through you head on your own before and after expecting it of your change agents. Get good at it and you will be able to fix danger early if it is real or call it out for what it often is- fear of the unknown. Right back to your role of describing end states and the journey/environment to get there.

Change in a quantum way

ggitchell — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:42:00 +0000

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.

Less success would be fed by a status quo that requires to much time to adapt and therefore guides a less powerful approach to change.

Or look at it this way- in any large change initiative during the design of the end state imagine how the future would look if the present path was smooth. Do what it takes to not just progress toward and get to the end state but create a path to the future (that in this perfect world is feeding back in the moment).

From experience I would say there is a feeling of inevitability, a magic carpet of forward progress, on smooth exciting change initiatives that might just be guided by a different hand of time (or lack of time as a dimension).

Reinvention- Chosen Change

ggitchell — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:54:44 +0000

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.

What about corporate scenarios then?

The argument against (yes this is real resistance) is that the level of effort, upending, behavioral adaptation needed makes Chosen Change impossible. It is usually viewed as, “starting over”. But in many ways isn’t that what happens when a company is sold? Or folded up into another? Or a new company is started by a previous employee (who soon becomes stiff competition)?

I would personally side with the resistors if it seemed show stopping assumptions would carry into the upended environment- with cultural assumptions and habits that is likely. If however the chosen change forced the assumptions to no longer be valid something new-in a good way- could come from upending.

Let’s call a truce between those who savor beginning again and those who see a time and resource black hole by letting this discussion be part of the change process early on. What comes out of the dialogue that follows might just be enhanced end states. Certainly it is a beginning for strategic collaboration and transparency.

The elephant in the room- Sometimes an invited guest

ggitchell — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 15:43:31 +0000

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-

They are protection from change They are an affirmation of culture They separate silos They are humilities’ path

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).

Plus, the elephant is part of who we are. To acknowledge and escort it away would make us something different than who we are. Our culture might just change. If our culture changes then each of us changes.

Elephants are social and tend to herd together as a group. Many organizations have an elephant in the conference room of each function. Those functional elephants in the room serve to create space between one function and another. You will have to acknowledge or remove our elephant if you want to collaborate.

It is so much easier to accept deficiencies when there is a scapegoat. The elephant is often the perfect illustration of the organizations’ and the stakeholders’ failings (or potential failings).

Calling out the elephants during the development of the end state description turns out to be a powerful tool. The exercise becomes a little like writing in third person when you are really talking about yourself. The “I have a friend who…” approach. Discussing the elephant in the room and being honest about comfort and hindrance can help to pave the way for a horizontal approach to change management.

Employee Engagement- You can almost hear the buzzing

ggitchell — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:24:53 +0000

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.

Lots of great things have happened with intense participation in dirty garages and corporate basements. Consultants are intensely motivated and their work environment is often the last pick spot (and it changes constantly with little stability). I am guessing that few of them have “an emotional connection” to the client organization as a whole, the client and the stakeholders yes. But not in the way that connection is used to push the term “employee engagement”.

To the work yes. The challenges then are- strategy must make sense it must be communicated to connect to individual work that connection and success must be rewarded and reinforced. The ultimate challenge? Getting past that first step…

Technorati feed-

P8EX99NYZGPW

Change Management Languaging- The search for the owner

ggitchell — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:58:58 +0000

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?

This is not just a semantic discussion.

The words that are used for change management send messages to stakeholders about understanding, value and the worth of acknowledging the change process individuals and organizational cultures go through.

As an executive for change, participate be the owner, avoid pass the buck sponsorship.

The Silos are still there just different…

ggitchell — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:32:58 +0000

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).

The holes in this web can represent modern silos.

You can carry this analogy along to say those are the groups protecting themselves. Or those are teams disengaging to complete tasks. Maybe those are the breakdown spots in the weaving of a web of collaboration?

The separate web an outsourcer? Or a partner?

The strands to the sides external influences?

Try using this picture to view the potential of your organization rather than the pyramid of constraint that is the org chart.

Preparing for the next great idea- Extra ingredients for Change Management

ggitchell — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:58:07 +0000

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.

Convincing may be a more data/emotional discussion.

An organization that does not have a communication channel for ideas for change has a serious structural problem.

In my own work with change management I make a point of weaving that channel somehow into the formal or informal structure to make it easier for the next idea to be heard.

Best practices- Assumptions that feed the loop

ggitchell — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:39:14 +0000

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.

As a client look at your practitioners’, internal and external, assumptions. Question them and hire appropriately. You will then be ahead of the executive next door and free of “the loop”.

3 mistakes (client/consultant) of middle of the organization Change Management

Garrett Gitchell — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:03:24 +0000

– thinking that change can be "managed" - reliance on tools, templates and method - using inexperienced change agents

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.

Not connecting strategy to competency and not filling in competency for strategy is the cold that creates the system.

In keeping with that analogy, if you market the cold medications effectively you can stay busy- because the still-sick-patient will feel great. In that scenario you will be forced to make the mistakes on purpose ("manage" to match your marketing, pretty forms to fill out and change agents that are affordable in the middle of the organization).

As a client it makes sense to keep yourself healthy- corporate strategy that blends business and people, assume senior change consultants have a quiver full of forms/approach and to budget and pay for experience.