“Two Surefire Ways to Kill Organizational Change with Mistrust”
Posted by Todd VanNest on Mon, Oct 04, 2010
Observation…the process of change IS the process of trust. Too often, the smartest, guru-endorsed, consultant-provided, tool-laden approaches to Organizational Change Management (OCM) are applied in a manner that is the antithesis of ownership-building process and engaging leadership. While we have highlighted the shortcomings of OCM in several posts, particularly as a source of distraction in the process of executing change, it can be a helpful resource. Just the same, it is best simply thought of as a tool—not a panacea, verbatim script for success, or (heaven help us…) a substitute for good leadership.
The link at the bottom of this post includes a link to an Harvard Business Review blog that includes a video vignette featuring Patrick Lecioni (author of “Five Dysfunctions of a Team”). Between the blog author and Lecioni, they illustrate two temptations and change traps that we have taught change leaders to avoid for years:
*Applying OCM or Project Management in a linear, mechanical way--failing to demonstrate the change-nimble value of Listen & Adapt (though this factor is highlighted in nearly every change team’s charter as an Operating Principle); and
*Limiting the development of trust to simplistic, transactional levels that fail to allow for the kind of open thinking, challenge, and disclosure that results in trust that leads to transformation.
If your experience matches that of our clients and the findings from our research, those moments when your business transformation and change efforts encounter hiccups, obstacles, interminable delays, or even a complete flame-out, they are marked by perceived conflict between applying the change process with rigor and the unwillingness of others (the “natural-born resistors”) to comply and/or a lack of trust. Unfortunately, these moments get attributed to change resistance. Frankly, this is a cop-out, and is intellectually lazy.
Real change leaders retain the responsibility for moving change forward rather than allocating power to factors outside their control (like the “resistance gene” that some believe organization members are cursed with). The leader must overcome the change-speak and focus on symptoms to make a critical examination (best informed by the more “objective” experience of key stakeholders) regarding what causes delay and derailment.
So…here is the practical guidance for Change Leaders looking to recover momentum, avoid change management traps, and stay in full-on leadership mode:
*Start right away, in the earliest part of the process (e.g., selling the change, linking to strategy, assessing needs and stakeholder views) with open and honest disclosure. Change Leaders who disclose concerns and fears are embraced for their refreshing candor and diligent thinking about organizational/cultural/viability risk—not shot down for looking “doubtful” or “weak.” This involves making an observation and then asking a question to create a dialogue about the area of concern—not about calling out potential resistors or others you fear may drop the ball.
*Build change teams to not only incorporate the voice of others with concerns, but to put a mechanism in place so that concerns are not dismissed as resistance (passive or otherwise) or an uninformed view of those “not yet brought under the tent.”
*Use an Issues Resolution discipline and related tools to make concerns as great a part of progress meetings as whether the vendor product arrived on time or we missed yesterday’s deadline.
*Eschew formal, process-driven mechanisms in the traditional change communications plan for informal, open moments of dialogue that help your change team engage stakeholders in the process of evaluating status and anticipating issues. Deploying some consultant-based “readiness” survey and using formal meetings where you ask for concerns (e.g., “Yes?...No?...Okay, then, we’ll move on!”) fail dramatically at fostering real communication and like cable news shows, really only succeeds at providing “confirmatory data”—hard-wiring in major blind spots and potentially putting your change initiative on a path to monumental failure.
On a world-class, competitive sailing crew, trust IS the commodity exchanged among crew members and the captain. In ANY form of sailing, a day without resistance is a day without progress—i.e., a day in “dead water.”
Link to HBR article on trust and Lecioni's video:
------------
Seeking new ways to KNOW that you have others' trust throughout the long journey of managing a complex change?
http://www.changemanagementmetrics.com
This diagnostic can be applied as a complement to your existing change tools. Click on the above link to acquire a FREE Baseline Asssessment--a helpful way to know where you stand today or hard-wire your plans for your new change initiative to avoid those factors that blunted change effectiveness in the past.
