Posts Tagged “Consultant”

The first three steps of The Brookside Group’s ASPIRE Change Leadership Model^TM tell you where you are, where you will go and how you are going to get there. The fourth step is the journey itself. “Implement Initiatives” encourages a deliberate, cautious, metrics-based approach to executing the change program. At its core is a set of approaches to overcome resistance.

Regardless of whether your proposed change is significant or relatively minor, you can anticipate resistance from some or all employees impacted by the effort. In fact, SHRM’s 2007 study on Change Management shows that about 70% of major organizational changes encounter employee resistance.

Your employee’s resistance can have many origins – such as differing on why change is needed, what change is needed or how to go about the change – and take many forms. They may show obvious signs of resistance, as when they strongly object to, or refuse to cooperate with, the change. Sometimes their resistance takes on a more subtle appearance, as when they show apathy. 

It is vital that you, as a change sponsor, not only anticipate resistance from your employees, but have a plan to detect, diagnose and eliminate it. You also must understand why they resist change so that, from the very beginning of your initiative, you can undertake preventative measures to minimize its potential effect on your success.

As discussed in our post about setting goals, gaining input on goals enables people to become aware, understand and participate in the change process. At one client, we used a three-step implementation approach for most tactics. It wasn’t the three steps that were important, it was the fact that people got to participate in the rollout of every tactic that was important. The approach consists of:

• The Laboratory – the laboratory was essentially a focus group. Beyond providing the project team the input on how to adjust messages and timing, it gave the project team the confidence that they would be able to rollout the tactics.
• The Pilot – the pilot was a internally visible test marketing of various concepts. The project team used the pilot to use new presentation material, validate training material and test new support tools. The pilot participants became change agents and ambassadors of the new ways of working. “I was part of the pilot, and it mostly worked. We recommended a few changes, but it can work for you too.”
• The Rollout – the third and final stage, the rollout is the large scale implementation of the change. By this point, confidence is high and resistance is significantly lowered.

Resistance to change isn’t necessarily all bad, as it sometimes can serve a constructive purpose. Allowing employees to express their beliefs and feelings will help you identify where their concerns lie and how to address those concerns to achieve the needed commitment to your change program.

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.

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.”