From early in my career, I’ve never been a huge fan of change and I believe that opinion was influenced by change being handled badly, time after time. Twenty years into my career I began to see change efforts handled intentionally and, somewhere along the line, I was introduced to John Kotter’s work at the Harvard Business School. As a change guru, Kotter outlined a basic 8-step plan for change which gave organizations a methodology for approaching change.
While the tenets of Kotter’s work are solid, I also believe that change should be approached from three distinct points of view:
1. Senior leaders need to know how to lead change. What does it mean to craft a change strategy and clearly articulate that plan to the organization?
2. Mid-level managers need to know how to manage change. How do people managers interpret and translate a strategy plan into actionable terms, and how do that listen, understand and convey their employee’s fears to upper management?
3. Employees need to know how to navigate through change. How do they interpret what is happening in the organization, to them personally, and what actions do they need to take as a result of the change?
About three years ago, numerous change theorists and change management “experts” began hitting my radar. I noticed that most were strongly influenced by Kotter’s work but their change plans were overly complicated and over-engineered. In addition, many solutions were technology driven and often smaller businesses have neither the budget nor the support to launch such an elaborate change initiative. I was lucky enough to be working with some very smart people who had both international experience AND a keen eye for simplifying complex models. Taking the position that “less is more”, I worked to condense Kotter’s 8-Step approach to an even simpler one. The slides below visually represent my approach to change.
I’ve found that the biggest mistake organizations make regarding change is around a “burning platform”. Literally, a burning platform implies that you’re in the middle of the ocean, your oil rig is on fire and your only chance for survival is to leave THAT platform for something else more stable – without another alternative, you will die. Organizations that need to invoke change in order to stay competitive or to keep up with technological advances DO NOT have a burning platform. Organizations whose competitors have stolen market share and without new revenue streams by the end of next quarter have a burning platform! It is fun –albeit frustrating – to watch executives try to explain the “burning platform” for change when there isn’t one. Even employees at the lowest rung on the corporate ladder can see that the platform isn’t burning, yet the executive is trying to explain that it is. Key point: it is possible to create a sense of urgency without having a burning platform. You’ll come off much more genuine, authentic and transparent if you can explain the need for change without creating fear. (Of course, if there IS a burning platform, you’d better communicate that too!)
A second mistake I’ve seen related to change is that leaders and managers try to over-communicate minutia. Employees trying to navigate through change don’t need all the details; plus, plans change. An ever-changing change plan diminishes the leader’s credibility. When communicating a change in direction, be sure to tell the “why, what and when”. Change agents, managers and corporate communications professionals can then triage the details of the plan as they become relevant. Employees need to absorb and reconcile the emotional reaction to the change first, without being inundated with details and data.
A third mistake I see organizations make is the failure to decide who has the “D”. When assigning roles and creating a project charter, due diligence should be given to deciding who is the party responsible for making a final decision on any part of the plan. Without a clearly defined process owner and decision-maker, the change initiative stalls. Strong project management skills are required to keep the change initiative on track, and to ensure the appropriate party is making (and communicating) decisions collaboratively and in a timely manner.
Check out the process map, related change activities and verifiable outcomes below. I’d love to hear your thoughts and comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment