"Predictable" Change Management Success?

I tend to stray from titles that sound like a panacea (except in my own case, of course, with  The LAST Word on Change_TM).  This blog post http://bit.ly/aEbw9I includes a review of a new book called “Predictable Success.”  Sounds like another unreasonable promise.  On the other hand, leaders who have successfully realigned systems in organizations see the intuitive pull in this title—“of course, you can make success predictable (if you have the right systems in place and the organizational alignment to execute)!” 

Similarly obvious is the fact that we, as change leaders, have endless opportunity because even the best of systems or alignment strategies are implemented in complex, imperfect environments.

Take a look at this preview, AS WELL AS MY COMMENTS AT THE END OF THE POST.  So often, “the truth” (or achievement and optimization) lie in simplicity rather than complexity and nuance.  Regardless of how you might change McKeown’s model (swapping out your favorite organization levers for his), begin the path to transformation and change by completing a simple “audit” like the one I suggest in the Comments:  Review the allocation of time by your managers today…If they are spending less than 50% of their time on the things that drive strategic execution or enable performance of your emerging strategy and business model, you must start the alignment process by ensuring that (a) you know what leaders must DO in the new environment to enable desired performance; and (b) redefine the goals, roles, and measures of success for these leaders—not by replacing them or by putting all through a workshop, but by reworking the infrastructure and culture so that this new form of leadership is the ONLY leadership that is acceptable.

In my speaking and executive coaching, much time is spent helping change leaders understand that “implementing” a change and expecting new behavior is folly.  You have to do the heavy work of realignment.  In addition, a critical part of this realignment must include eliminating the competing and “old” practice to achieve optimization (be mindful that not a single dollar of value is realized through implementation—only the act of adoption does that, and THIS (adoption) is what needs to be optimized for transformation and change success).

The best tip I ever got for making strategic shifts was to invest equally heavily in “Endings Management” (i.e., being equally clear about what we must STOP DOING—no matter how uncomfortable that is, in order to successfully optimize success and achieve this new strategy).

See more on the power of simplification during change by previewing our own upcoming book release, The LAST Word on Change_TM.

http://www.lastwordonchange.com/our-new-book-on-change-management/

Bad Boss, Even Change Leader, Not a Career Dead End!

Having a bad boss is clearly a drag--sometimes, as outlined in this B-net blog post http://www.bnet.com/blog/ceo/how-to-deal-with-a-bad-boss-dont/5409?promo=713&tag=nl.e713 your only option is to leave the job/company.  Of course, there are circumstances that border on hopeless--e.g., you're in a small town working for the only large employer and your boss is the knuckle-headed son of the owner. 

Many professionals get particularly itchy and weigh their "fight or flight" options when some dolt gets assigned as the leader of a change initiative and s/he inherits this village idiot, philanderer, or organizational cancer as a boss for the duration of an initiative. 

As outlined in the b-net post, traditional options for dealing with this dolt are easily sorted into fight (go to HR, go over his head, sabbotage his efforts) or flight (quit).  However, as an Executive Coach, I can assure you that there are many additional options--particularly when sabbotaging a project you believe in (something most of us would never even consider) is not an option and your role on the project can provide you with a nice career boost (visibility, influencing strategic work, adopting new practices and learning new skills).  These options require some significant work and patience, but can be very successful.  Consider the following coaching options--all of which can be successfully deployed by a "subordinate" or team player (i.e., it does not require that you are a highly paid consultant/coach).

__Ensure that, one-on-one if needed, you get him to discuss his personal goals.  Help him articulate how achieving team goals helps him achieve these personal goals.

__Volunteer to create detailed metrics and reporting tools, assuring him that he can avoid "flack" and "hen-pecking" by higher-ups by keeping these metrics and continuous reporting out front (don't say, "transparency"--you'll scare him back into his cave!).

__Point out the unique (complementary) talents of team members and encourage him to make the most of these with delegation and informal role assignments within the team or with key stakeholders to "minimize the unreal demands on your time."

__Create stakeholder communication forums (sharing dashboards, user forums, project updates, etc.) so that the meetings where the only the weak leader (bad boss) attends are not the only channels for managing impressions with key stakeholders.

__Serve as a buffer between the boss and project staff so that he does not discourage or disenfranchise these players on whom the initiative relies.

In the moment, hopelessness can set in.  However, the tactics outlined above are highly effective.  Benefits include "saving the project from him" and saving your own career and/or sanity in the process.  I have even seen them used to get a bad boss or change leader promoted out of the project--that's "passing a bad penny," but was good for the multi-million dollar project and all involved.

For more on how to drive a stronger stakeholder orientation and measurement focus in change initiatives, creating greater accountability and success, visit our site dedicated to change measurement:

http://www.changemanagementmetrics.com

The Last Word, brought to you by NEXT SUMMIT

We wish you the best with your efforts to find that place where change meets execution!

5 Ways Change Management Models are Incomplete

Recently, a major study demonstrated that little has changed-Nearly 70% of all transformation and change initiatives continue to fail.  With all that is written and posted on Organizational Change Management, or OCM (i.e., where a Google search yields over 6.3 million hits, and change guidance is a large part of the $345 billion dollar management consulting market), it is time to look at the quality of guidance provided by OCM and its authors/consulting gurus. 

Additional research is peeling back the layers of the change management onion to identify critical gaps in OCM.  It is important to note that this research is not focused on presenting another "proprietary" model with more (or differently labeled) steps to the change process.  In fact, by these measures, even PROSCI as the "industry standard" and a model published by a UK firm touting its TEN steps as the "most comprehensive" fall short.  The purpose of this posting is to use preliminary findings from this new research and invite your additional inputs. 

In addition to posting a response and contributing to an active dialogue among change leaders, you will see a link at the bottom of this posting to an internet forum where you may list your insights about gaps in change management guidance. 

So, without further adieu, here are the TOP 5 Ways Change Management Models are INCOMPLETE:

1-Even "comprehensive" models fall short.  Nearly all models of OCM (and related consulting) simply repackage the same guidance; and their steps are incomplete.  The most significant sign of incompleteness lies in OCM's violation of the 80-20 Rule.  Though the 4, 5, 7 (or even 10!) steps these models outline define a front- to back-end process, the vast majority of steps (and certainly the bulk of related consulting, training, and communication guidance) are focused on the steps through implementation.  It is important to recognize that implementation doesn't deliver "dollar one."  It is the adoption of new practice that drives new outcomes and achievement of the stated transformation and change objectives. 

The amount of attention relegated to post-implementation steps like "monitoring" and "sustaining the change" is poor at best.  This is, in fact, where the heavy lifting of leading change takes place.  It is true that no project is successful without success in the first stages of change (e.g., planning, implementation), but the 80-20 imbalance of detailed guidance from these models results in a dramatic falling off of attention and resources post-implementation.  Consequently, change teams and their sponsors look at the additional investment in managing change and are left wondering why they find themselves continuing to rationalize results or point fingers for change failure.

2-Communicate, communicate, communicate-Still not enough!  The core focus of any change management offering boils down to structuring communication throughout the change initiative-with the greatest focus on communicating in the early stages of change so that expectations are effectively managed and buy-in is secured.  Focus on communication and training still falls short.  We have found that in failed transformation and change (with the exception of efforts in the readiness and planning phases) the communication continues to be largely 1-way.  The failure to set up mechanisms for, and discipline to respond to, feedback throughout the duration of the initiative results in mismanaging change.

3-Little evidence of "changing the way we change."  It is very popular today to position a transformation and change initiative as a way to model new values or bridge the organization to a new culture.  However, we continue to see change teams fail to put any real, objective measures in place to get candid and actionable feedback throughout the duration of the change initiative.  How do they know whether they are effectively modeling those values? 

Many change teams happily promote their ability to model these values and desired culture, but their conclusions are based on their own self-reporting, loosely tied to select stakeholder comments, or based on narrowly defined surveys-not systematic, disciplined measurement (let alone genuine "listening").  It is not uncommon, for example, to find change teams which are tone deaf to feedback from their most important stakeholders that the team is making decisions in a way that is inconsistent with stated values (including those in their own Project Charter and Operating Principles), or has created divisions within the business (i.e., in- and out-groups) based on access to change plans, project status, or special training.

4-The "Human Element" in managing change.  Popular change management models focus almost exclusively on employees outside the change team as the "human element" in change.  While it is true that the psychology of resistance is helpful in understanding how to engage others and increase adoption of new practices, amazing little attention is similarly paid to the change agent.  Fear, courage, leadership dynamics, influence strategies, and decision dynamics draw on a larger percentage of our understanding of human psychology than the hoards of attention paid to re-shaping the hearts and minds of "natural born resistors."  Make no mistake, OCM models and related consulting focus attention on the change leader, but nearly all of that focus is on providing process guidance and tools of influence and project management-things these leaders are taught to aim at others.  As a result, the change leader is left like an island and little or no insight to h/her personal experience leading change comes through.  It becomes easy for these individuals to leave authentic and engaging leadership behind in favor of influencing solely through the power and authority of a process owner, driving the organization through its paces like "Super Project Administrator."

5-There is an over-reliance on "lag" measures.  The disciplines of change and project management, as well as specific practices like Six Sigma, have improved results greatly through a strong focus on metrics.  However, as a lot, the tools provided change leaders to measure success are primarily "lag" measures.  Clearly any observed and measured business performance output is a lag measure-this is the "delta" change leaders seek and promise to deliver in the business cases they utilized in gaining support for their initiatives.  Even "real-time" trending of such outcomes involves a lag (observation) period.  Perhaps the most visible measurement discipline used today are the rigorous progress measures deployed throughout the initiative's life-cycle.  Even on-time, on-budget indicators and "progress versus the project plan" are lag indicators.  How does one know that these critical, but "lag" outcomes will be realized?

Recent research has shown that more successful change initiatives occur where change leaders are tuned into "leading" indicators-particularly indicators of adoption.  Note the critical shift here-measurement of preliminary or leading outcomes, not simply betting on lagging business outcomes based on the presumption that the project plan, perfectly executed, must deliver expected outcomes.  It is better to (a) Include a focus on leading indicators (like changes in roles, goals, and demonstrated accountability) targeted to each phase of the change process; (b) "gate" the company's way through the phases of change based on these metrics; and (c) include "objective" (e.g., stakeholder-driven) indicators to decrease reliance on self-reporting by the change team.

JOIN STUDY:  You can contribute to this research as a change management expert by accessing our OCM Study Participation Form.  Takes minutes.  Rank change management gaps on our list and/or add your own insights.