Archive for the “Leadership” Category

Change is a scary process in and of itself. But add the word “transformational” in front of change and the idea has people running for the exits. Since transformational change is such a widely used term in change management, why does it elicit such a reaction?

Well, first, transformational change encompasses more than reorganizing a single department or changing a simple business process. Transformational change affects the entire business, from the front-line employee to senior management. It affects the organization’s structure, processes and culture. It creates significant disruption across the organization; it changes the patterns and assumptions found within the organization. For instance, it requires employees to work in new ways; ways that might change their ingrained, comfortable identities.

Even more important than the change associated with transformation is the implications associated with the word. Transformation means out with old and in with new. It means caterpillars are bad – we want butterflies. The only problem is that you are a caterpillar, and you’ve always been a caterpillar. And you like being a caterpillar.

Because the word transformation can start the conversation on a negative tone, the idea of transformational change needs to be carefully approached even in organizations in great need of change. Leaders looking to implement transformational change need to start with an appealing, positive vision and work backwards to the negatives of today. “I envision a world where we will be beautiful, fly with the winds and see the world… As an added benefit, we will have less risk of being stepped on.”

During the course of the reorganization, the president, HR head and Finance head conducted a number of “alignment” sessions with the organization’s top two levels. These sessions were meant to explain the rationale for the change and define the roles of those executives in moving the reorganization forward. Nonetheless, mixed messages were common when those executives spoke to their functions. Just as bad, employees told us repeatedly that senior managers were absent or silent during the most stressful periods of change.

Obvious shortcomings in the vision were, no doubt, a primary driver of the mixed messages. Unfortunately, poor leadership, political maneuvering and an unwillingness to confront unproductive behaviors created far more turmoil in the workforce than was necessary.

In the end, the team knew they had few options in addressing unhelpful behaviors from such senior executives. All the same tactics (those alignment sessions) would need to be employed, with one important addition. At the project’s initiation, the team would measure senior executive support by surveying their functions. Scores would be publicly provided to senior management “in the spirit of transparency.” Of course, transparency was only part of the rationale. Creating a sense of competition and peer pressure would become the safety net to ensure appropriate performance.

Recently, we worked on a reorganization of a business with several thousand employees. The company was splitting itself into smaller organizational units. Our team didn’t set the business strategy or the change plan. But we were the arms and legs to help the project team get the work done.

At the end of the project, the team documented their learnings and some will be shared over the next couple posts. We share them for a simple reason – it is highly likely that other reorganization teams will face similar challenges. The challenges themselves aren’t “secrets;” what created the challenges, where the challenges occurred and how they were addressed are. In any case, here are some real live challenges to plan for as you work on a reorganization.

#1 – Crystallize the Vision and Case for Change

While there were several important themes supporting the reorganization (like “accountability” and “customer focus”), these themes didn’t effectively crystallize into a clear and compelling picture of the envisioned future. Because the vision wasn’t clear, the team struggled throughout the project with several issues:

• Decision making became more complex since there were no clear “stakes in the ground” on which to base priorities. Everything was an ad hoc decision. Nothing was principle based.
• The team was left in a reactive and responsive mode vs. being proactive with a clearly defined strategic goal.
• The team was unable to effectively communicate an appropriate understanding of management’s vision of the future. (The team wasn’t quite sure themselves). When the team did communicate, there were conflicting messages:
  • “This is not a cost-driven exercise,” and “Design an organization that reflects some level of reduction,” or,
  • “Business process management and execution is critical to our long-term success,” and “We can design our processes after we set the organization;” or,
  • “Do it right,” vs. “Do it fast.”

The team’s #1 lesson: “When considering large-scale change, nothing should be more important than crafting an iron-clad and understandable case for change and an engaging vision for the outcome of the change. This includes creating specific examples of how employees would experience the change as enhancing their work lives. Use focus groups to test the vision for how understandable and engaging it is.”

I found a recent Business Week article about what happens after the corporate layoffs to be a good example of why Dilbert continues to be such a popular comic.

The article discussed, in a rather glib tone, how interior designers are persuading executives “to do something—anything—with the space where employees used to be” after their downsizing efforts.

Now, I’m all for ensuring the remaining employees stay engaged and recognize the need for extra special care during this time. Heck, I’ve been there. And I’m all for recycling – whether it be paper, plastic bottles or office furniture. But seriously…recommending the newly empty space should be used for quiet rooms, massage chairs and plasma TVs seems a little insensitive. Would employees left behind really find it appropriate that their colleague of 15 years has been replaced by the new plasma screen in the hallway?

Perhaps it depends on what stage of coping the remaining employees might be in at the time these initiatives begin. Anyone familiar with the Kubler-Ross grief cycle understands there are seven stages a person goes through during any type of traumatic change, whether it be the loss of a loved one or the loss of a job. The stages are shock, denial, anger, bargaining, depression, testing and acceptance.

More power to the interior designers who can improve our work environments through creative uses of space, lighting and furniture. But timing is everything. Making these types of changes while employees are in the shock, anger, denial or bargaining stages would most definitely cause negative consequences.

But perhaps it might make sense if done during the accepting stage, especially if the employees are given a voice and participatory role in the reconfiguration of their workspace. This ownership would involve them in shaping a new future, and not in Dilbertizing their situation.

It is fairly predicatable: change teams have challenges developing role clarity. What are the organization leader’s responsibilities? How do leadership responsibilties differ from the management level responsibilties? What is the communicator’s role? What should the communicator expect from leadership?

Here’s a quick review of those roles and their related responsibilities:  http://tinyurl.com/5ov3s5

Many U. S. workers compete in the global market for talent.   Jobs can be moved to countries where comparable quality work can be performed for less or where there it is easier to find a skilled workforce.  A 2005 study from The National Academies illustrates the point:

• For the cost of one chemist or one engineer in the United States, a company can hire about five chemists in China or 11 engineers in India.
• In 2004, more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China.  In India, the figure was 350,000.  In America, it was about 70,000.
• Of 120 chemical plants being built around the world with price tags of $1 billion or more, one is in the U.S. and 50 are in China.

If you manage in a company that competes globally, or are employed by an organization whose work can be sourced globally, you know that constant change is necessary to either stay ahead or catch up.  Choosing to change slowly is a choice to lose eventually.  Choosing to change quickly is choosing to compete aggressively.

Creating organizational readiness for change can be illustrated with a story of our child’s first day at school.  We needed to make her, aka – the organization - ”ready,” as she was about to experience the biggest change in her life to date.

So what did the change leader in us do?  Even though I was not a change expert at the time, I certainly didn’t sit her down on Labor Day and say, “Tomorrow, your role in this family is changing and you won’t be in this house most days.” 

We took a much different approach:

• Through the summer, we created awareness that change was coming, and September would be a new and exciting time.
• Helped her understand what school was.  We took her to the school in late August to see her room and meet her teacher.
• Stood at the bus stop with her, and then drove to the school to meet the bus.  In short, we participated in the process of going to school with her.
• “Measured” and celebrated her success so she would exhibit the same behaviors in future days.

The same concepts apply to creating organizational readiness for change in an adult setting.   Create awareness, enable understanding, encourage participation and measure performance.  (I guess the big difference is in the appropriateness of videotaping each second of the change!)

Unfortunately, many organizations have the Labor Day type conversation and expect change to occur overnight.  Those organizations certainly get change – but not the results they wanted.

If you are accountable for your organization’s change program, there are five steps you need to take to ensure success.

1. Fully understand why your organization needs to change. The reasons behind your organization’s need to change will drive many of your decisions. What are the events placing new demands on your organization? Are these events internally – low employee engagement – or externally – downward shifting economic trends – driving the change?
2. Establish what must be done. At this stage you need to:
   • set a vision for the change project
   • define your guiding principles and imperatives to ensure each decision made or step taken on your path to change is the right one
   • set measurable objectives and goals and determine how you’ll measure your progress
3. Plan how the change will roll out:
   • identify the major actions and timing necessary to achieve your objectives.
   • establish the strategies necessary to reach your vision and objectives
   • identify and obtain the resources you need to achieve the objectives.
4. Align senior managers. Granted, the change was likely their idea, but the execution is all yours. You must have them aligned on the how and when of your program. Do this so they walk the talk.
5. Initiate a measurement program to track your progress and adjust plans as necessary. Provide feedback processes to gather information about your progress, and rewards to engage employees.