Archive for the “Leadership” Category

It is safe to say that companies are constantly changing their ways of working to find better ways of going to market. Strategies are changing, processes and technology are being upgraded, functions are being reorganized all while quality improvement and cost reduction programs abound. Change has become the status quo.

It also is safe to say relatively few employees are actively engaged in their work. Recent surveys from Gallup place the level of active engagement at 26% and Blessing & White place the figure at 29%.

The disconnect between strategic actions and employee engagement, particularly at the middle management level, is of significant worry to CEOs. In PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ 2008 CEO Survey, 50% of CEOs stated a lack of engagement or motivation of middle managers to drive change represented a critical barrier to effective change. It isn’t too hard to imagine the CEO turning the helm of a battleship wondering, “When is this thing going to move?”

So what can be done to move the battleship? In our work, we have found five strategies to be helpful:

1. Awareness – Put simply, communicate, communicate, communicate. Nobody has ever over-communicated during periods of change.
2. Understanding – One-way communication can generate understanding on simple topics. “Submit your forms by Tuesday,” doesn’t need a conversation to ensure understanding. More substantive change – such as changing a job’s responsibilities – does. Unfortunately, change sends most managers in the opposite direction of conversation. They do not want to confront change’s unpleasant aspects, and wind up having less dialogue with their teams than they would during “normal” times. Working around this tendency comes in strategies 3-5.
3. Participation – Employees who shape their own future will have a vested interest in the success of that future. Draw people into the could-be vision, enable project teams to design their own future state, provide education and training. Do anything and everything to get people involved. What they build will usually far exceed what the leader would design. Sometimes, however, what they build will fall short of the leader’s potential design. Shortcomings in design will be more than made up for in execution. They own it, and they will make it work.
4. Measurement – There is a concept in quantum mechanics saying it is impossible to measure something without affecting its attributes. (Explaining quantum mechanics is for another blog, however!) Measurement calls out performance – both the good and the bad. How measurements should be used depends on the organization’s culture.
5. Leverage – When in doubt, use a lever. Why spend three hours explaining a concept to five managers? Spend two hours explaining the concept to one director. Let the director drive the concept with the managers. People want to hear about change from their supervisors – not a project team. Invest heavily in the top of the organization chart and the battleship will move much faster.

Stefan Stern has written a great piece in Financial Times on transformational change and uses two examples to buttress his claims. The success story is the opening of a new terminal for the cross-Channel Eurostar train service. The failure story is the opening of the new British Airways terminal at Heathrow airport. The highlights of the Heathrow story are provided below:

“consider the horrors of the launch of Heathrow’s T5 in March. Sure, as far as the construction of the site was concerned, it was a triumph, a £4.3bn project completed on budget, on time and in full. But in spite of BA running a three-year change programme, called “Fit for 5″, we all know what happened come opening day.

Baggage handlers tried to warn their bosses about the problems they could foresee. The site is huge. Employees, who had not had enough training, simply did not know where they were supposed to go. More time had to be allowed to get staff from their locker rooms to the arrival and departure gates. And, as for the lockers – the new ones were not big enough to hold all the baggage-handlers’ clothing and belongings, including bulky wet-weather gear. Parking space, also far from the terminal building, was inadequate.

Managers were told about all these things. And BA chief executive Willie Walsh did not appear to know how grave the problems were. (He later told MPs that he had taken a “calculated risk” pressing ahead with the launch date.) But the clock ticking down to the March 27 opening had kept ticking, and apparently it could on no account be stopped.

Managers sometimes complain that their people “hate change”. That is just not true. People hate stupid change, change that they have no influence over, change that is simply imposed on them.
To err is human. We all do it, even – you will just have to believe me here – journalists. But looking back at the T5 fiasco, it seems clear that a bit of honest, straight talk (and action) at the right time could have helped avoid much of the subsequent aggro.

How hard is it really for managers to recognise these basic truths: that staff (including managers) need to be trained properly to do their jobs well, that employees on the ground may have useful things to tell you about the reality of the work they are doing, and that large-scale, difficult changes need to be prepared for thoroughly?

So much in the world of management seems ultimately to be a matter of common sense, of basic human decency, in fact. You could almost believe that most management foul-ups would be avoided if only people did a bit of serious thinking first. Employees could then get on with their work calmly and productively. Life would go serenely on. And, in this blissful world of efficiency and success, there would certainly be no need for management columnists.”

There would be a whole lot less need for management consultants as well!

In the May 30, 2008 edition of The Wall Street Journal, there was an article on Campbell’s Soup Company and innovation.  A callout box provided five tips on leading a transformation from their CEO, Douglas Conant.  They are worth reprinting:

1. Bring an “all things are possible” attitude to the work.
2. Confront the brutal facts and be clear-eyed about the situation.
3. Set high standards and make expectations clear, as the ability to mobilize people is the key to success.
4. Give the organization time to do things right.
5. Do what you say you will; this is about performance, not intentions.

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.