Posts Tagged “Change Management”

Now that you know what your destination is, you need a roadmap to get there.

The third step in The Brookside Group’s ASPIRE Change Leadership Model^TM gets you that roadmap. During the “Plan Programs” step, you define milestone goals, strategies and tactics to reach your end goals as defined in the previous step in the model. (See “Setting Goals).  

Again, this might seem easier than it truly is. It is easy if you stick to general, directional plans. If you are very specific, measurable and time-bound, it isn’t nearly as easy – but your plan will be better by orders of magnitude. Stating, “Train key employees in the fourth quarter” is easy.  Stating, “Train 85% of all managers and 100% of directors and above in the first two weeks of December” makes the expectations clear for all. You might not get the 85%, but your result will be far better than the first example would provide.

Likewise, your strategies, which are the basic action items to be undertaken in support of the objectives, need to be specific. For instance, just saying that you’ll use communication as a strategy during the initiative isn’t enough. You need to dig deep down to what you’ll communicate, how, when and why.

As might be obvious, measures are the standards by which the success of the strategies is quantified. The key mistake we see is tracking activities, like counting intranet articles. Your measures need to be outcome focused, allowing you to track the degree of behavioral change that’s been achieved. And if the behavioral change isn’t great enough, then your measures also need to tell you why.

One final thought on planning your program, you must establish a system of governance over the program and a method for managing the program. A governance program will provide you and your change team with information and understanding about:

• Who the program’s stakeholders are
• The roles and responsibilities of all parties
• The process for escalating issues

Some form of program management will give you the ability to:

• Track and report program milestone status, resource plans, budget, interdependencies
• Provide transparency to risks, issues, etc.
• Make unbiased, final calls on status
• Ensure actions are executed, issues assigned and addressed and key decisions made; ensuring issues, resolutions and key decisions are communicated
• Ensure consistency of ways of working, team protocols, reporting, in an effort to improve effectiveness and efficiency

A college student researching change management asked us for information on how our company works, and this inspired us to update some documentation on The Brookside Group’s ASPIRE Change Leadership Model^TM. Yesterday, we began posting some of that work – specifically, the assessing steps required to kick-off a successful change initiative.

Rarely do people embark on a journey without knowing the destination. Well it’s the same with a change initiative. According to the Harvard Business School, a compelling view of the future is critical. However, this compelling future view is more than just a vision statement. It’s a shared vision that is desirable, compelling, realistic, focused and flexible, and more importantly, capable of motivating employees to participate fully in the change.

This need for a shared vision takes us to the second step in the model, Set Goals. This might seem deceptively easy. But in fact, it’s arguably the most challenging component of the model because it requires a very deep and clear understanding of all the issues surrounding your change program.

On the surface, it might appear that developing a vision might be a process that requires you, as a change sponsor, to fly solo. In reality, the exact opposite is true. The more you reach out to change participants to help develop the vision, the more likely you will get their assistance in carrying it forward. Involving others often results in gaining their commitment and willingness to help you implement the change ahead.

For that reason, the development of a shared vision is an important activity to undertake at the beginning of an initiative. It can serve as a catalyst to draw change participants together and share the common bond of being able to see – and own – the future success of the effort.

Therefore, once you have “assessed the as-is,” your focus should turn to creating a shared vision for the change program by establishing:

• The way participants will know they have reached the desired end state or the definition of the desired end state
• The scope and parameters of the change
• The reason – or case – for the change
• The risk if the change is not undertaken
• The relationship of the change to the company, industry and/or competitive environment
• The various workplace factors – such as processes, practices, systems and facilities – that will not be affected by the change

However, in designing the shared vision, you should not simply confine yourself to the consensus of change participants’ opinions. To give the effort meaning and scope, the vision must challenge employees to imagine, seek and achieve new heights of excellence. As Albert Einstein once said, “Imagination is more powerful than knowledge.” When change participants become aware of what is possible, they begin to realize that challenges can be surmounted, problems can be resolved, and a target can be achieved.

Why does a shared vision need to have the abovementioned characteristics? Because, it:

• Paints a picture of a future that is both desirable and attainable. It motivates participants to focus and achieve their goals to accomplish an end that – in many cases – differentiates their company from competitors.
• Has credibility with employees as it is tethered to the business’s needs and, hence, to a clear target.
• Focuses employees on the activities that have the most value – and discourages them from pursuing more opportunities than they can handle.
• Encourages employees to work toward new levels of achievement as the organization continuously improves its capabilities.  

In today’s business world, no competency is more crucial for a manager than the ability to spearhead change effectively and expeditiously – and in a way that fully engages all stakeholders.

As we’ve already established, change management is a systematic and coordinated approach that can be implemented on an organizational, operational or even personal level to create, lead and manage change. However, to successfully lead any change, one needs to follow a series of six comprehensive steps. These steps are manifested by The Brookside Group’s ASPIRE Change Leadership Model^TM:
 
For the successful implementation of any large project, and especially a change initiative, it is important to perform project steps in the correct order. Thus, the ASPIRE model begins at the top of the circle, with Assess the As-Is.

The Assess the As-Is gives you with some critical components to launch your change initiative:

• The awareness and understanding to explain why change is needed based on current business issues.
• A clear picture of your current state. You might have an idea of how your organization is performing, but thoroughly investigating the as-is state ensures you have the facts and not just guess work.

All this results in a platform for change that helps you establish the sense of urgency – one of John Kotter’s key reasons for failure (see posting Why Transformation Efforts Fail) – to rally support. Support is critical because for change to happen, according to Harvard Business School, 75% of managers must believe that maintaining the status quo is more dangerous than making a change.

In future posts, we’ll discuss the other steps in detail. But one final comment for now: You’ll notice, that The Brookside Group’s ASPIRE model is a closed loop. That’s because it needs to be a repeatable and sustainable process of continuous improvement that brings about meaningful change and continues to drive your organization ever closer to optimal performance. This is an important point to remember as we discuss the other steps.

I’m working on a presentation for a human resources conference, and as part of the presentation, I’ll be covering why transformation efforts fail. Covering the topic, however, presents me with an interesting dilemma. Should I talk about the failures I have seen? What would this say about me? “Presenting the world’s best speaker on the subject of failure….”

After careful consideration, I’ve decided to reference others.

Perhaps the best work on why transformation efforts failure comes from John Kotter of Harvard. His 1995 article in the Harvard Business Review, entitled “Why Transformation Efforts Fail,” qualifies as an oldie but goodie. If you haven’t read the article, it is worth the $6.50 to download.

His major point is that successful transformation efforts happen because leaders do eight things right, and they do them in the right order. Here are Kotter’s perspectives on the eight mistakes leaders make:

1. Not establishing a large enough sense of urgency
2. Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition
3. Lacking a vision
4. Under-communicating the vision by a factor of ten
5. Not removing obstacles to the new vision
6. Not systematically planning for, and creating, short-term wins
7. Declaring victory too soon
8. Not anchoring changes in the corporation’s culture

My thoughts:

• A consultant is sometimes hired to help with Nos. 1-3, and political delicacy is frequently required. The consultant may need to say, “The emperor has no clothes.” He or she also may need to follow that up with, “and doesn’t listen well either.”
• Nos. 4-6 are the gory hand-to-hand combat steps of change, and the consultant must be in the background. If the consultant is highly visible during this phase, unintended morale issues will likely result. A consultant can help with tactics and execution, but the leaders of change must be the employees themselves.
• Consultants are usually not around for Nos. 7 and 8. The engagement has ended. Consultants usually see #7 and #8 when they are reviewing the shortcomings of previous changes.

A 2006 study from the European Users’ Group and the University of Mannheim provides some insight into spending on Organizational Change Management during SAP implementations. The big takeaway: half the respondents are spending more than 5% on people-related topics.

In our experience, as organizations grow in size, people-related issues expand even more quickly. Although the study did not provide specifics, it would be fair to assume smaller businesses are spending less than 5%. To get the necessary people and technical alignment, larger businesses spend more than 5%.   

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.

Last week was a busy week. We began work with a new client and I was battling a mini-depression over an assessment that my profession might add no value to society.

My battle started with an article I read about Wall Street wizards, hedge funds and derivatives. The author, an Andy Rooney-type, claimed if a person couldn’t explain what they did for a living in two sentences, they weren’t adding value to society. Farmers, doctors, plumbers and janitors were all on the good list. “Liquidity tranche default analysts” were definitely on the bad list.

So if I can’t define “organizational change management consultant” in two sentences, does this mean I am not adding value to society? Does my mother-in-law have any idea what I do when I say I:

“Help clients’ managers lead their people quickly through organizational changes. I help by being a project manager, strategist, writer, teacher, coach, scorecard keeper, presenter, analyst, tactician, assessor, trainer, and graphic artist.”

The answer is no. Those two sentences, although accurate, really don’t get the meaning across. I’m afraid I have failed the author’s test. I need more than two sentences.

If unbound by the two sentence definition constraint, I frame a conversation about the work to be done with questions about an organization’s relative potential for success:

1. Does it have the right goals and plans? Are the right goals established for the situation? Will the plans enable the organization to reach the goals?
2. Do people understand what they are to do? Great plans that aren’t understood have no value. How does the leader ensure people understand the plan? Are they organized to succeed and have all the enablers necessary to achieve the goals.
3. How engaged are people to achieve the goals and work the plans? The right plans, even if well understood, will not be successful if people don’t want to make the necessary effort.

Depending on the answers, the organizational change management consultant’s job changes greatly. At the most general, the consultant’s job is to help the organization answer yes to all these questions. The specific work changes based on the nature of the challenge, the scope of services being retained, and the tactics required.

Regardless of the author’s perspective on whether certain jobs add value to society, there is value to an organization in moving past change and returning to its mission. The faster the move, the more value is created. If a consultant can speed that move, the consultant helps create value.

As an aside, I decided on Sunday the author was wrong – which just happened to be Father’s Day. Sometimes more than two sentences are needed. To prove the point – try defining “father” in two sentences. Or – obviously – “mother.”  

The social scientist, Kurt Lewin, once stated, “If you want to truly understand something, try to change it.”

There are many reasons for and against every decision. Knowing what those reasons are and how to properly weigh them to make the right decision can be more art than science. However, Lewin’s concept of force field analysis is a technique change leaders can use for evaluating the variables present in their change management program before making the decision to go ahead.

Within the idea of force field analysis there are driving forces – those things helping you achieve change – and restraining forces – those that would prevent change from occurring. By listing those forces, as shown below, force field analysis offers you a clearer picture of the strategies needed for successful change. Specifically, force field analysis helps you:

• Decide if you have the right support for the change initiative
• Identify what obstacles are standing in your way
• Find ways to reduce or marginalize those obstacles

Change leaders who take the time to weigh the pros and cons in this way will have the information they need to weaken the negative forces and strengthen and leverage the positive ones. For the pictoral learner, placing concepts into a picture yields an immediate grasp of what to minimize, and what to augment.  Even for those who aren’t pictoral by nature can gain the understanding and engagement of those who are by depicting the situation as simply as is done below.

In an earlier posting, I briefly mentioned Elizabeth Kübler-Ross’s grief cycle. Her cycle defines the rollercoaster we all ride during times of loss, and includes the five stages:

• Denial (this isn’t happening )
• Anger (why me?)
• Bargaining (I’ll … if …)
• Depression (I no longer care)
• Acceptance (it is what it is)

This cycle is often what employees experience during times of change. The instability from the unknown future state causes employees to feel they’ve lost their power or control over the work lives. The instability causes undue fear and doubt in themselves and their futures, causing them to get stuck somewhere between immobilization and depression.

Helping employees to move through these stages toward acceptance can be difficult, but not impossible, especially if we employ the strategies of awareness, understanding and participation to help them through it.

By creating awareness of the change to come, we help employees move through the denial phase and make the change a reality for them. Likewise, helping employees move to an understanding of the need for change helps them to deal with the anger they feel. Finally, using participatory methods helps employees to move through the depression and past just simple acceptance to a level of engagement in the change.

One place to look for a different take on creating awareness, understanding and participation is Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers helps individuals seeking weight loss through their Four Pillars. The Four Pillars are behavior, exercise, food and support that make up a comprehensive program of support, education, and encouragement.

These pillars take members through an awareness of their weight issues – why they are overweight – to understanding the best ways to address their issues -the right food choices and exercise – to engagement through participating in meetings or an online community.

Alcoholics Anonymous is another good example of personal change programs that address the need for awareness, understanding and participation. Through fellowship meetings and their 12-step program, members are encouraged to participate in their own healing. This is done by helping members acknowledge their situation and then finding ways to live with it.

Perhaps with a little effort, companies can work to apply these participatory and supportive means to their change efforts. 

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.”