Our Blog: "The LAST Word on Change"

Consensus is Killing Your Organizational Change—Part 2/2

Tweet

 

Last week’s post introduced how a reliance on consensus can torpedo change initiative speed and progress—along with some practical advice for course correction when over-reliance is discovered.  Today, in Part Two of this post, I will discuss one of the fundamentals we’ve discovered to hard-wiring change initiatives to avoid negative impacts of Consensus altogether.

There are, in fact, many things a Change Consultant would prescribe for overcoming the Consensus Trap.  However, my discussions with them in on-line forums usually reveal guidance that boils down to “if you would just apply MY change model as prescribed, everything would go just fine.”  That is wholly unsatisfactory.  One of the best defenses against over-reliance on Consensus that I have found involves two fundamentals:  (a) Managing Expectations; and (b) Working very hard throughout the life cycle of the change initiative to confirm clarity of ROLES, GOALS, and key MEASURES—you can’t delegate that to a process.

Managing Expectations:  Making detailed plans that include maximizing participation does not satisfy.  These steps can send positive signals about inclusiveness and shared ownership, but do little if anything to make explicit just why the program is structured in the way it is—or to save the initiative from the “promise” of inclusiveness to be interpreted too broadly (and in ways that damage productivity at best, credibility at worst).  Using tools like a RACI (or “responsibilities”) Matrix, a Governance Map, and Decision Planning (e.g., decision type by key issue) will help stakeholders understand both the process AND intent of the Change Team.  Change project “slogans” and value statements won’t do.  Sharing the logic behind decisions about where to be inclusive and where that impacts value and productivity allows stakeholders to extend trust to the Change Team and others throughout the initiative.

Clarity Around Roles, Goals, and Measures:  I see many teams diligently follow a Change Process—carefully documenting what they intend to be clear on these elements.  This fails the objectivity test--roles are typically presumed or allocated in a “telling” mode.  You can only know if you’ve achieve the required clarity by constantly asking open-ended questions of various stakeholders to check understanding and incorporate role, goal, and measurement clarity in your criteria for “gating” the organization through the agreed steps in the change process.  So…

*ROLES:  Restate and check understanding on roles as communicated in the tools outlined above.  Reality check this understanding and agreement by “testing” the application of this logic in advance—e.g., “So, your input and approval here is critical (i.e., “partnership”), on the other hand, we’re extending trust to the Implementation Team at this phase to move this forward and respond to questions from our own teams (i.e., “delegation)…”).  Be very explicit and even role-play “what-ifs.”

*GOALS:  While you may negotiate standards and need the participation of stakeholders to establish baselines on many measures, the type and level of achievement for large-scale change is rarely up for negotiation.  So, be candid and honest about this. 

*MEASURES of Success:   Clarity on measures will help others “get” the logic you’ve created around prioritization of solution/implementation quality, acceptance, and speed. 

Our research has demonstrated that this clarity and shared logic is a Leading Indicator of Change Management Success_TM.  If you have truly overcome the habit of one-way communications and shallow, overly structured solicitations for feedback (e.g., a broadcast email asking, “Any objections?”; use of a consultant-provided Change Readiness Assessment; posting of discussion/feedback pages on a shared project website; or nailing a ‘suggestion’ box to the break room wall), you’re winning a large part of the battle.  Deeper, more active listening is required.

Work diligently (most importantly listening) to achieve shared understanding of expectations and process clarity.  The answer does not lie in MORE communication, but more rich communication—i.e., it lies in creating meaning.  As a result, the most effective transformational change initiatives use open, objective means for listening to key stakeholders throughout the change process.  A lack of clarity in Expectations or Roles, Goals, or Measures of Success created in executing the change process must be valued by the Change Team as critical feedback and a sign that the organization is not yet ready to move to the next stage in the change process (e.g., from “solution design” or “creating readiness” to “implementation”).

Learn more about “gating” the organization through change by contacting us at The LAST Word on Change_TM.