Where It All Started

people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people.

How We Got To This Point

people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people.

The Only Way Out

people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people.

An Historical Perspective

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people! Here is a word-cloud of this complex topic:

The Future Of Organizational Change Management

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people.

The Moral For Organizational Change Practitioners

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people.

Disclaimer

people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people people peoplepeople people people people people people people.

Schein uses the term Diagnostic Interventions to indicate that consultants should be aware of the fact that each contact they have with the client is an intervention. We may think we are only diagnosing or ‘just asking some questions’, but in reality we are interrupting the reality of the person being interviewed.

Diagnostic Interventions?

A whole dynamic of questions, reactions and assumptions is put in motion once we have started our diagnosis. Who is that consultant? Why is he asking those questions? And why is he coming to me? If you fail to frame the purpose of your interview these questions will start to lead their own life in the back channel. Therefore it’s crucial to have your act together and make sure you have a conversation about the conversation before actually starting it.

Diagnostic Interventions are the best way to involve members of the organization in the change program. By asking them relevant questions about the present state, you not only learn relevant facts about possible resistance to change, but you also begin to influence their thinking and get them involved in the planning. You need to recognize that no matter how neutral and innocent the questions may be, they will influence the thinking of the people in the organization.

The Anatomy of Diagnostic Interventions

As I work my way though an organizational change project I often notice that every diagnostic is an intervention and that every intervention can serve as a diagnostic. This is shown in the drawing above. I think that there is a correlation between the diagnosis and the intervention and that the balance of the two depends on the level of trust.

For instance: if I am visiting a site manager of a multinational organization for an interview in order to determine the scope of a project (i.e.: even before the project has been called into existence) the level of trust is low and there is very little intervention I can do. I am at the complete left side of the drawing. The one thing I should recognize is that the level of trust is low and therefore I need to frame the purpose of my visit with care. This is often done in preliminary meetings with the sponsor of the program. After all, as a consultant, you are a foreign element and often a first sign that the boat is going to be rocked.

Consider that I am meeting this same site manager at the moment of implementation of the change program. Time has passed, work has been delivered and we had the chance on multiple occasions to build a mutual relationship. I am now on the right-hand side of the drawing. This means that I am able to get some work done in co-creation with this site manager because the level of trust has increased. At the same time I should be aware that there is still some temperature that I can measure on-site.

The Moral of Diagnostic Interventions

The concept of Diagnostic Interventions pulls our attention to the fact that we need to split our brains:

• When we are diagnosing a situation we are influencing it. Therefore we need to be aware of the consequences of that intervention and frame the purpose of the diagnosis;
• When we do an intervention we should be aware of the diagnostic opportunities. Don’t take things for granted and ask how people are doing.

There is always a little of both – diagnosis and intervention – when we have a contact with the customer.

My change management radar for 2011/2012 is focused on the upgrade of the change management portfolio. This upgrade is fueled by the increasing adoption of social media. Looking at the digital economy and how it has changed our daily lives and the business we work in, I am very reluctant to accept that our domain of expertise – Organizational Change Management – would not have changed an inch.

Some of the discussions I have with organizational change practitioners are timeless and time-consuming; i.e.: still discussing and re-iterating concepts of almost 40 years ago (and older). The economy has changed dramatically ever since, but the vantage points are still the same.  My suggestion is to look for where our skills will be needed today and tomorrow.

I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.

Wayne Gretsky

Multiple Intelligences

Turns out that the digital economy not only changed the way we do business but also the way we interact, think and collaborate. Think of it as a new literacy. In our narrow view of the world literacy involves only text, but there is also image and screen literacy. The new literacy, triggered by the internet, is one of information navigation. Information Navigation is a new layer of literacy that adds itself to our multiple intelligence (that is: the literacy of image, speech, text, moving image).

But there is more. Since the last few years the rise of social networks has topped our multiple intelligence with an additional form of literacy. Collaboration intelligence is exactly the skill that is catered for by social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter.

The Anatomy of an Organizational Change

The organizational change management approach caters for 4 different elements. They are: Communication, Learning, Organization and Performance. Each element represents a specific need that people have during a change.

• Communication: people need an identity to hang onto so they can see what is in it for them. Constructing an identity for your project is necessary in order to provide an answer to the question “What’s In It For Me?”.
• Learning: People need to know what is expected of them in terms of attitude, knowledge and skills. A part of this is provided in the form of classroom-trainings (the know-how), but the largest part of the knowledge transfer will take place in practice, during the testing phase and the phase of problem-solving. That is why the learning work is never restricted to the classroom and – most of all – we need to carefully build a network of local ambassadors for the project.
• Organization: this is the need to know “Who does what?”. This means that the setup of the future roles and responsibilities needs to be clarified upfront. Next, the support structure in the long run needs to be setup, i.e.: the community of ambassadors who will be responsible for the sustainability of the solution.
• Performance: Finally, people need to know what exactly will change in practice and how this will affect their working habits and usage of time. This includes a detailed follow-up of the chronology of tasks and the creation of a uniform procedure that is shared among all departments.

What the Puck of Organizational Change looks like

Now here is the thing: when social media are changing the laws of gravity for business, there is no way  organizational change practitioners can stand aside and pretend that their methods and tools should not be reviewed. What’s more: social media are specifically affecting the core of our business. In other words: the anatomy remains the same, but the focus needs a radical change.

In my opinion, this is how social media is requiring the focus of each of the change management work-streams to shift: players remain the same, but the game is being played on a different level. Therefore it requires a different puck.

On the left-hand side of the drawing above, you can see what change management execution was about before the digital economy got any traction:

• Communication: broadcast your messages to stakeholders (‘Message & Audience’)
• Learning: manage the curriculum (‘Content & Collection’)
• Organization: top-down (‘Hierarchy & Position’)
• Performance: push harder (‘Control & Compliance’)

However, as we are witnessing the end of the Industrial Revolution, we discover that leadership and workplace dynamics are no longer hierarchical. That game is over. Compliance is no longer the shortest path to productivity. When the world changes, the rules change. And if you insist on playing today’s games by yesterday’s rules, you’re stuck. The truth is that relationships are no longer hierarchical, they have become tribal. This means that the new puck of Organizational Change looks like this:

• Communication: listen and trust the process (‘Story & Community’)
• Learning: learning is in the network (‘Context & Connection’)
• Organization: become a platform for change (‘Social Architecture & Roles’)
• Performance: balance push and pull (‘Trust & Co-creation’)

Now that we know about the anatomy of the players and the old versus the new puck of organizational change; let’s zoom in on what the playing field looks like.

Outside: Where the Puck is Right Now

In a world where information is no longer scarce, productivity is about connecting customers and employees in a different way. Like it or not, the internet has shifted the ownership of your brand to your customers. Customers own your brand by advocating or disliking it. Here is the thing: when consumers own your brand, productivity depends on your ability to include customers into the story of your product.

Customer Relationship Management has never been about customers, neither relationships. It has been about systems and about ‘management’ in the narrow sense; i.e.: making sure that customers fit into and behave according to a certain script.

The next thing you know is that social networks are becoming immensely popular and all of a sudden companies want to be present and popular on that level as well. But it’s a Trojan horse, because customers now have the means to hack the call-center scripts and to ‘gate-jump’ to a different game-level: The facebook-pages and all other means of ‘presence’ of an organization are embedded with a dialogue function by default. As a result, there is no way to be present on social media and at the same time not listen to your customers.

The Trojan Horse

On a side note: some of you may remember the video of Michael Hammer where he announced that ERP platforms like SAP were the Trojan horse for bringing down silos on the inside of an organization. It all starts with the implementation of an innocent software, and the next thing you know is that your processes are re-engineered from end-to-end and the company is working in a completely different way.

In the same way as ERP implementations are the Trojan Horse for business process re-engineering, to the same extent social networks are the Trojan horse for bringing down silos between marketing, communication and customer service. Customers are slapping companies in the face(book) publicly and what started out as a marketing campaign becomes a nightmare for customer service.

Only those companies who are prepared to bring down the walls between customer care, marketing and communications will thrive. This is where we – as organizational change practitioners should be today. That’s right: not in the ivory tower of HR/OD, but in the trenches with the call center agents trying to figure out what works in relationship building with customers.

Inside: Where the Puck is Going to be

Now let’s have a look at the next step: to “skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” (still quoting Wayne here). The same logic applies to internal projects: ownership demands for inclusion of employees into the creative process. These employees in turn will also have upgraded their literacy in the mean time.

Therefore, it is my contention that this same movement will be visible in a few months INSIDE companies. There are already some Trojan horses appearing here and there. Internal social networks such as Yammer and Rypple are spreading like a (healthy) virus. This is where the puck is going to be. The question is: where are you skating?

PS: Tip of the hat to Gail Severini for triggering this article.

“He” is not an exception. Every day consultants are suffering from so-called unreasonable customers. They work hard and somehow they don’t seem to deliver what the customer wants. But hang on – and hang in there – because we may be jumping to conclusions.

The fundamental mistake that this person has made is assuming that he is an actor on stage. He is not. Consulting is about directing the play. But as long as you keep thinking that you are an actor you will suffer. The one thing you need to keep in mind is that it is not about you. As a consultant your job is to make the customer perform. This will require your ego to adopt a different approach to performing and winning.

For starters, you will be managing different expectations. When you see yourself as the actor on stage, you will focus the attention on standards and measurements of your own stage-work. A stepping plan of meetings and workshops to get YOUR job done; agreement on KPI’s of YOUR assignment. However, once the project kicks off, you will note that the customer – and NOT YOU – will be going through a roller-coaster of emotions. But when the project setup has been 100% about your own indicators, the customer has no other choice than to direct his missiles in that direction.

So how will you receive the feedback? Receiving feedback is different when you are an actor on stage than when you are the director sitting next to the stage. When you are on-stage you have no other choice but to take it all very personal. Every applause and every remark; it’s all yours. This is fun for key-note presenters, but on a consulting assignment it’s a drag.

If you are doing your job well, your customer will go through some emotions sooner or later. Your job is to make sense of all the feedback that is generated during that journey: feedback from the audience and feedback from the real actor on stage. You need to make sure the actor does not get killed and make sure the actor doesn’t lose focus, confidence and self-respect.

As a consultant the feedback isn’t yours because it’s not about you in the first place. The messages are not for you. Nevertheless you should open them, read them and keep your distance, because your job is to make sense of the feedback and to pass it on in a fashion that it adds value to the customer. Then – and only then – will you take the suffering out of your performance.

This goes to show that consultants burn themselves out by thinking that they are the actor on stage. Thinking of yourself as the director instead of the actor on stage will improve the management of expectations, the interpretation of feedback and the actions you take as a result.

Remember my rant on Social Architecture? Turns out that this is not only a necessary upgrade for companies but also an upgrade for Change Management as we know it. Take note of the word: “upgrade” => not “replacement”.

The organizational change management approach caters for 4 different elements. They are: Communication, Learning, Organization and Performance. Each element represents a specific need that people have during a change.

• Communication: people need an identity to hang onto so they can see what is in it for them. Constructing an identity for your project is necessary in order to provide an answer to the question “What’s In It For Me?”.
• Learning: People need to know what is expected of them in terms of attitude, knowledge and skills. A part of this is provided in the form of classroom-trainings (the know-how), but the largest part of the knowledge transfer will take place in practice, during the testing phase and the phase of problem-solving. That is why the learning work is never restricted to the classroom and – most of all – we need to carefully build a network of local ambassadors for the project.
• Organization: this is the need to know “Who does what?”. This means that the setup of the future roles and responsibilities needs to be clarified upfront. Next, the support structure in the long run needs to be setup, i.e.: the community of ambassadors who will be responsible for the sustainability of the solution.
• Performance: Finally, people need to know what exactly will change in practice and how this will affect their working habits and usage of time. This includes a detailed follow-up of the chronology of tasks and the creation of a uniform procedure that is shared among all departments.

So What’s the Point?

When social media are changing the laws of gravity for business, there is no way organizational change practitioners can stand aside and pretend that their methods and tools should not be reviewed. What’s more: social media are specifically affecting the core of our business.

In other words: the streams remain the same, but the focus needs a radical change. In my opinion, this is how social media is requiring the focus of each of the change management work-streams to shift:

Your thoughts?

Organizational change practitioners who are acquainted with the literature on change management know that I am referring to Elisabeth Kuebler Ross, who stated that dying underwent five stages.  Although I think that the stages are surprisingly accurate in describing what is going on and what will come next during a change, I suspect we could do better if we look at these stages from a birthing perspective.

Same Cycle, Different Angle

It is striking how the major insights of the change cycle come from two angles that seem at first to be opposites: development psychology, and research on death and dying. Psychologists and biologists observed that we typically find children whining and being more difficult when they learn something new and it often takes a while before they adapt to and assimilate these new abilities. For human development “things will get worse before they get better” is almost a law of nature: A biological upgrade of our brain software leads to a drop in performance before we pick up and use our new- found abilities.

On the complete other side of the spectrum, Elisabeth Kuebler Ross has described her work with terminally ill patients and found that they typically come to terms with their prognosis in five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance. In these cases, it is self- esteem that shows a serious drop-off and then picks up with acceptance in the same way as an infant coming to terms with its new abilities. Although most organizational change is not of a life-or-death nature, people may experience similar stages as they adjust to it, making Kuebler Ross’ advice highly applicable.

Looking at the change cycles in the figures above, it is remarkable that our field of expertise has taken the death-curve as a frame of reference. This is even more striking because the child-development perspective dates from 30 years before Elisabeth Kuebler Ross’ fieldwork.

Birthing

In an earlier article I have referred to Jean Piaget – who is generally regarded as the father of child-psychology. Piaget was the first to discover that during each new stage of development, the child’s brain-mind is prepared for the new potentials appropriate to that stage of growth. If appropriate models for those potentials are given in a safe space, learning is automatic, spontaneous and natural.

Before a child is born, there is a magical interplay of stress hormones in the bodies of the mother and the child that cause the birthing process to kick-off. The next thing you know is that childbirth goes through different stages that can equally be compared to what people go though during an organizational change. In my opinion the metaphor of birthing (instead of dying) contains far more possibilities in the context of an organizational change. Here are some examples:

• Contractions: these are the first signs of a point of no return. Contractions are painful (so I’m told) and both mother and child are going through an intense period of stress. There will be blood everywhere. There is no such thing as a clean birth. It’s unavoidable.
• The umbilical cord: It’s the cord that gives life to the child and the channel through which the child has been given strength during  pregnancy. The umbilical cord symbolizes the relationship between the owner and the future state (be it a new organization structure or an ERP platform). In most organizations the future state is strengthened by external project teams, giving little possibility for a natural umbilical cord to do the work.
• Vernix: procrastination, grapevine and whining are a necessary catalyst in the birthing of a future state. It’s the vernix that is necessary for our own protection and that is useful during the process of birthing. And just like vernix it looks ugly. You don’t need to wash it off because the skin of the newborn will absorb all of it.
• Wombing: How’s that for a new verb? With ‘wombing’ I refer to the need of a mother (a future owner) to have a child-wish, to conceive the child  voluntarily and to have an intense bonding with the child even before it is born. The bonding that occurs during pregnancy convinces the mother that the contractions and the labor ar worth it.
• 9 months of pregnancy: Time and again we see project managers trying to make 9 woman pregnant in order to deliver a baby in 1 month. It happens over and over – and every time these project managers run into the wall of time.

I am sure that you can think of much more possibilities that come to life with this metaphor and I invite you to share them in the comments section. I am convinced that a 2 hour brainstorm may result in a sparking and inspiring document detailing every aspect of the birthing process in terms of organizational change.

The Point (and the Disclaimer)

The point I am trying to make in this article is that both perspectives describe a cycle where ‘things will get worse before they get better’. It’s a law of nature. This article is an invitation to look at a same change situation from a different perspective. This will not change the nature of things – the cycle remains the same – but it will fundamentally alter the conclusions and actions that we draw from it.

And finally: a big disclaimer. The fieldwork of Elisabeth Kuebler Ross is unique and will continue to be one of the fundaments of our field of expertise. There is no way that I am doubting its validity or added value.

A few weeks ago I attended a workshop on project management where we were drawn into an experiment involving 20 sticks of spaghetti, one yard of tape, one yard of string and one marshmallow. The objective was to build a structure as high as possible and the marshmallow needed to be on top.

The Marshmallow Challenge

You may be curious about what this possibly has to do with project management. Turns out that this challenge reveals all of the things that are essential and that you won’t find in the books and methodologies on project management. The ‘marshmallow challenge is a popular challenge. Designer Tom Wujec even created a website on the topic and conducted some research on the performance of marshmallow construction teams. The thing got more attention since he talked about the results on TED last year.

The Uh-Oh Moment

The biggest surprise always comes from the weight of the marshmallow. Although the weight of the marshmallow is known from the start, the majority of the project teams wait until the very last moment to put it on top. This is the biggest flaw of all projects and it gets even worse when the level of education of the participants is higher (in fact: kindergarten graduates outperform other teams on this challenge!). Here is what typically happens as the project unfolds in a team of very skilled people:

• In the orientation phase there is some power play and who-does-what gets decided upon;
• Skilled teams are trained to create a single best plan;
• They consume most of the time by building the structure according to the plan;
• When the time is almost up, they take out the marshmallow and put it on top;
• For a very brief moment you hear ‘ta-da’, and then it is most of the times ‘uh-oh’.

From Uh-Oh to Ta-Da!

So far so good. We were about 20 minutes into the workshop, played around with some spaghetti and built a structure that did not work. Obviously, the next step is to blame the marshmallow. That’s what we do in real projects, right? The target population and their needs (the marshmallow for organizational change management projects) are known from the outset, and yet we never start building with them in mind. We always build with the one single plan in mind; a plan that is based on assumptions.

Looking at kindergarten graduates, here is how we can improve our performance on the challenge: kids always start with the marshmallow and they build one prototype after the other. Designers call this the ‘iterative process’: constantly prototyping and refining.

This results in an entirely different use of the time, and for change management projects this would also result in an entirely different relationship with the target population, because it requires you to involve the target population from the outset. The point is to keep the marshmallow on top from the very beginning!

By the way, you may have noted that this is what I am proclaiming when I talk about raising the bar for our profession (only now it gets even more clear that early involvement and ownership is essential)

What’s In It For Us?

The marshmallow challenge was a real eye-opener for me and the take-aways are very enriching. I can summarize them by quoting Tom Wujec:

Every project has its marshmallow.

Design truly is a contact sport. It demands that we apply the very best of our thinking, feeling and doing to the challenge that we have at hand.

Sometimes a little prototyping is what it takes to turn a Uh-Oh project into a Ta-da project.

Finally, I’d like to thank Katia Van Belle who is an extremely skilled and knowledgable facilitator for this exercise.

In this one minute interview Daryl Conner underscores the importance of sponsorship for the realization of an organizational change. There is a difference between the mere installation of a change program and the realization of the benefits that you want to obtain.

Advocates With Checkbooks

Advocates can only bring about installation. For realization of the benefits to occur, you will need the sanctioning power of sponsors. More precisely, there is a whole framework of sponsors, agents, targets and advocates that needs to be in alignment for the benefits to be realized. The below list is taken straight from Daryl Conner’s blog:

• Initiating Sponsor(s): The individual or group who strategically legitimizes implementation of a change, either within several major areas of the organization or enterprise-wide. Sponsors (regardless of their level) sanction initiatives through influential communications and meaningful consequences.
• Primary Sustaining Sponsor(s): The individual or group who formally sanctions the change within relevant areas of responsibility, providing a “united front” of leadership support for the endeavor and coordinating implementation activities (across functional or geographical lines, as necessary).
• Local Sustaining Sponsor(s): The individual or group who orchestrates the communications and consequences within the relevant tactical areas of responsibility necessary to ensure successful change implementation.
• Change Agent(s): The individual or group who facilitates the development and execution of the implementation plans.
• Target(s): The individual or group who must actually change. Advocate(s): The individual or group who wants to achieve a change but does not possess the necessary legitimization power.

In an earlier article I wrote that you need someone with the sanctioning power to drive the change all the way through the implementation, i.e.: not only propelling the program out of the harbor, but navigating it all the way to the destination. Sponsorship is about providing the required level of commitment and support to deliver on the promise. This can only be done by someone who has the ultimate control over the resources of your program.

Installation Versus Realization

At first you make think that we are discussing an academic difference or an artificial concept. Most people with a ‘just-do-it’ mindset tend to become impatient at this point. The next thing you know is that they plan an invasion and bypass every single ambassador or potential owner of the future state. Let me get this straight: checking boxes on the project plan has nothing to do with realizing benefits.

Installing the change can be done with a checkbook: it’s just a matter of hiring the right experts and performing the scores of your project plan. Realizing the benefits will require the advocates with checkbooks to partner with the sponsors that have the sanctioning power for the change to persist.

More On Relationship Issues

As a starting point for further reading you may want to dive into Daryl’s post on sponsor-agent relationship issues. It contains great links, including a contract for a sponsor-agent relationship that you can download for free.

The first two articles in this series focus on understanding the elements of resilience and what individuals and leaders can do to build and support it. Here I’d like to focus on the third element in this model: What can we as change agents do to support and enhance human resilience as we execute critical initiatives?

Change Agents are Stewards of Human Energy

When we take on the responsibility of assisting an organization in transition, we are entrusted with a very precious resource: the life force of the humans in that organization. If we do our work well, that energy is multiplied; liberated; freed to flow more effectively. If we do our work poorly, that energy is drained; stuck; used in unproductive ways.

The link to resilience is direct: Change creates turbulence. Humans expend energy to regain equilibrium. The less energy people use to adjust to each change, the more change they can absorb, and—by definition—the more resilient they are. This means that everything change agents do to minimize the level of turbulence, increase the productive flow of energy, and decrease the energy needed to adapt for those involved in change without compromising the effectiveness of the change initiative, raises resilience.

Here’s a list of some of the things that come to mind, with questions to think about for your current project:

Minimize the Level of Turbulence

• Evaluate the level of disruption the change is introducing. What elements of the change are most disruptive to the people involved? Is there a way to reduce the level of disruption without compromising the goals of the change?
• Provide as much direct control as possible. Lack of control is one if the key contributors to disruption. Are there areas where people can have options/choices?  How can we involve them in shaping the direction of the change?
• Where direct control is not possible, help people establish accurate expectations (indirect control). Are we communicating clearly, accurately, and honestly what will happen, when, and to whom? Are we trying to artificially protect people from disruption by withholding information?

Increase the Productive Flow of Energy

• Pay attention to the flow of energy. It’s intangible, and can’t easily be quantified, but it can be sensed. Where are we seeing enthusiasm? Momentum? Engagement? Where does energy seem low?
• Tap into individual discretionary energy. When individuals see a path to achieving personally important outcomes (growth, learning, serving a higher purpose, etc.), they can contribute almost unlimited amounts of energy to initiatives that also benefit the organization. Do we understand what outcomes are important to individuals? Can we help them achieve these goals while helping the organization succeed?
• Identify things that are impeding the flow. I like the theory of constraints as a mental model here: Imagine energy as water flowing through a hose. The flow will always be limited (constrained) by blockages, leaks, or narrow places in the hose. Rather than trying to find and fix them all at once, we need to figure out which one is biggest issue, address it, and then look for the next one. What’s our biggest energy blockage or leakage right now? If we could change one thing right now (an unsupportive leader, a lack of resources, etc.) to address this issue, what would it be?

Decrease the Energy Needed to Adapt

When we consciously take each of the personal resilience characteristics (described in more detail in the first article) into account in planning and executing the change, we help each individual engage their change muscles most effectively. In each area, I’ve included one or two sample questions for reflection; I invite you to create and share others as well.

• Positive: The World—Are we viewing and communicating the change, and the reasons for executing it, purely in terms of problems and dangers, or are we seeing and sharing the hope, possibilities, and opportunities that are also present?
• Positive: Yourself—Are we effectively aligning the talents and skills of individuals with the demands of the initiative? Are we helping people see where they have contributions to make?
• Focused—Are we clear about where this change fits within the organization’s overall set of priorities? Are we communicating these priorities to everyone involved so they can align their energy accordingly?
• Flexible: Thoughts—Are we getting out of our own habitual ways of thinking about things? Are we including time and space for people to participate in innovation, creativity, and playfulness as we identify new approaches and solutions?
• Flexible: Social—Are we using collaboration and teams effectively? Are we making it safe for people to ask for support and help from others?
• Organized—Are we creating clear processes and structures to guide us and others through uncertainty? Is everyone clear about what these are and how to use them?
• Proactive—Are we encouraging experimentation and risk-taking? Are we allowing people to learn from mistakes as they move out of their comfort zone and into new ways of operating?

One last thought: I have seen many project teams focus most of their attention on the team itself and the work it is doing while spending far too little time on the people throughout the organization who must shift their mindsets and behaviors to operate in the new environment. It’s certainly important for the team to maintain and enhance its own resilience, because the demands of project execution can be high. But it’s also essential to pay attention to the resilience of the participants/targets/contributors in the change, including leaders at all levels. Their energy is required to achieve sustained success.

I’d love to hear other ideas about how you support resilience through your actions as a leader. You can find me on Twitter, on my blog, or on email.

The Five Blocks

Maybe I’d better put a disclaimer before you read any further. A sort of statement that warns you that writing about the starting conditions of a program does not make you immune for missing them – even if it looks as easy as five domino blocks.

So without further ado, here they are:

1. Sponsorship: Being a fan of the program is not enough. You need someone with the sanctioning power to drive the change all the way through the implementation, i.e.: not only propelling the program out of the harbor, but navigating it all the way to the destination.
   Sponsorship is about providing the required level of commitment and support to deliver on the promise. This can only be done by someone who has the ultimate control over the resources of your program. (I strongly recommend Daryl Conner’s blog for in-depth knowledge on sponsorship)
2. Identity: When the journey is long and the destination is far, people will need something to connect to. This is why program branding is important. Mind you: I did not say ‘advertising’.
   When I say ‘identity’, I refer to the level of community-building that is needed for people to place their trust upon an uncertain future. The ‘brand’ or ‘identity’ of a program works like an emotional bank account: people make deposits and do withdrawals to the same extent as you stick to the promises of your brand. (I have borrowed the concept of an emotional bank account from Stephen Covey’s ‘Seven Habits‘)
3. Ownership: When the program is big you will need a team to make it happen. But that’s not all: you will also need a team to own it and to maintain it AFTER the program arrived at its destination. People need a social architecture that helps them to connect and share their knowledge.
   Building such a community is not easy because it is not done with the pressure of authority. Rather, it is done with the gradual and consistent work of going local, being there, and connecting.
4. Urgency: This is the ‘now’ when a change is needed. It all comes down to defining what ‘now’ is. Therefore the sponsor needs to have a vision that is broad enough to communicate the destination, and narrow enough to communicate that there is no alternative. (This is where John Kotter’s work on the different types of Urgency comes in handy)
5. Parallel Projects: I sometimes nickname them as ‘killer whales’; i.e.: social animals who can kill your program. At the start of a program it is very unpopular to start listing all the parallel projects that may possibly hinder the program. It is very uncomfortable to state that other projects will either need to stop or redirect even before your program has delivered any tangible result.
   Yet I recommend to start this conversation as soon as possible, because killer whales will socially swim along your boat as long as your speed and power is not a threat to them. After that, … well…,  that’s a different episode of Free Willy.

The Order Matters

There is a logical order these domino blocks should be placed in. This is the order in which the first domino block will push against the second. The third block will be pushed by the combined energy of the first and the second, and so on.

This is how it goes for change programs:

1. Make sure that the sponsor of the program is visibly in charge and publicly commits to the program;
2. Build a brand by connecting it to how people experience the program. No matter how hyped the name of your program; no matter how dull the logo of your initiative; what matters is the stories that people will tell about it.
   Make sure that you brand the program though the stories they tell – and not through the advertising of some expensive external agency (have them create the logo, but let them stop there; the tagline should be yours!);
3. Make sure that the appointed owners of the program AND the future owners of the end-state are included in the creation of the brand. Amplify their stories and connect them as early on as you possibly can.
   Also: free up their time (hint: only a true sponsor with sanctioning power can do that);
4. Build a case for change. Please make sure you use the right arguments in the correct order: speak to the heart, then to the head, and eventually to the hands;
5. Be ruthless about parallel projects. Cram the image of a killer whale into the head of your sponsor as soon as you can. Tame them before they kill you.

The Distance Matters

In order to create momentum for your program, these domino blocks need to stand close to one another. This means that the distance between each block should be a maximum of weeks, not months! Else a domino block will fall over and create no effect on the next one. Timing does matter: compression will generate energy from one block to the next.