Our Address Has Changed...You Should Be Redirected in 5 Seconds

If your browser is not redirected automatically, please click on the link below.

http://www.smartchangesolutions.com/blog/

Change Is Personal!

Let's face it! Change is personal. Yet, we often hear that we should divorce emotions from business. It sounds something like this... "Leave the personal stuff at the door" or "Leave the emotion out of it" or "Let's focus on the facts, not the individual" or some other statement like that.

But people are not machines. Research has shown that unlike Descartes suggested, emotion does drive behavior and decisions (A. Damasio, A. Bechara, L. Sayegh). This is evident in financial market fluctuations. Markets don't react. People (investors, traders, etc.) react. People make emotional and irrationally decisions. Most of our purchases are biased by our emotions (ask a professional sales person!).

So, when it comes to change, people also react based on emotions. It is part of being a human. Why? There are at least two reasons. First, organizational change often threatens (at least in perception) what people hold dear to them such as their...

• Status in the organization
• Ability to influence others
• Level of contribution
• Routine and habits
• Career progression
• Pay and ability to maintain a life style
• Job security

All of these interfere with a person's comfort and safety. And that's personal!

A second reason is that change requires people to make choices. Should I support this change? How do I cope best? How do I tell so and so? Should I voice my concerns or suck it up? Should I wait it out or leave while I can? These are only some of the decisions facing someone who is undergoing significant change. People consider the facts of course, but in the end, it's what's in their hearts that will drive them to action. And that's personal!

During time of change, it is critically important to understand people and why they react the way they do. For instance, so called "resistance to change" is fundamentally a personal emotional response, not a cognitive reaction. Yet, resistance is often addressed by traditional business communication (one way, fact-based, top down), which most often ignores the root cause of the resistance but is seen as a panacea for organizational change.

So, if you think you should you leave the emotions out of organizational change, think again. Because when it comes to change, it's personal. And ignoring that, doesn't' make it go away. It only gets more personal. Just ask Reed Hastings!

p.s. ok, he did come to his senses, just a bit late.

Photo by Ambro

5 Reasons Why a Change Management Strategy Matters

Recently I responded to a LinkedIn discussion asking "how important is a change management strategy to the success of an improvement program?" I wanted to re-phrase the question and expound on my answer.

First of all, no strategy, as good as it might be, will ever deliver any value unless it is well implemented and executed. Assuming that this is the case, here are my top 5 reasons why a change management strategy matters in any type of organizational change:

1. Change is personal. Change is almost always interpreted and experienced at a personal level and people react to that in a very real sense. A good CM strategy should address these dimensions of the change program.
2. The soft stuff is the really the hard stuff. The technical work is easy compared to the work it takes to shift and improve the leadership styles, communication styles and patterns, beliefs and assumptions that influence behavior, etc. that will support the change. A CM strategy should include interventions to address these issues.
3. Successful change requires a change in mindsets and/or behaviors. It's about influencing hearts and minds, not just informing eyes and ears. Saying so doesn't make it so. A CM strategy should always include a solid communication but a communication plan is not a CM plan.
4. Change must be sustainable to be successful. This requires a change in areas such as decision making, performance management, metrics and accountability, rewards practices, etc. A CM strategy should include strategic changes to specific levers that will enable and reinforce the change in the long term.
5. Make real impact. An effective CM plan should tie specific CM interventions and deliverables to business outcomes and should include measurable ways to evaluate the degree to which the CM plan is indeed successful.

For these and other reasons, most organizational change programs fail to deliver the expected ROI. A colleague in the ERP business, shared with me that a client had called them back two years after implementation. They wanted to re-train the users because they were not using the new system as intended. In fact, they were still using much of their legacy practices from the old system. What happened? They spent millions in implementing a good solution that was never fully adopted by the people. (By the way...training is rarely the answer! But that's the subject of another post later).

A good CM strategy, well implemented, would have accelerated their ROI expectations and saved them the cost of rework (re-training), not to mention the loss of productivity over the two years following the implementation. So, how important is a CM strategy? You do the math!

At Best Places to Work, Trust, Pride, and Camaraderie Overshadow Pay?

The Great Place to Work Institute just released their list of the 25 Best Multinational Workplaces. And once again, critics and believers are out in full force touting these 'great news' or denouncing such 'corporate propaganda.'

According to the article in the USA Today, "Firms that rank high on the consulting and research group's lists of great employers have three traits in common, he says: employee trust in management, pride in the company and camaraderie with colleagues."
"At the best companies, even the lowest-level employees know they are part of the team," Tolovi says. "They know that they have a common goal."

Fact or fiction? It depends on the eye of the beholder. Most of the comments posted in response to the article are critical and discount the research as naive, one-sided, and as one more piece of evidence that rich corporate fat cats are out of touch with reality. And who can blame critics? In the current economy, saying that "pay really hasn't been a big driver of employee motivation" and that "non-financial factors usual play a more prominent role in influencing employee motivation and engagement" sounds, well ridiculous! Unless, that is, you keep in mind two simple considerations

First, if Maslow is correct, once a lower level need is satisfied, that need ceases to be a motivator. For most people, pay is a need that once satisfied, no longer motivates the same way it once did. It still is important, but in relation to other factors, it may not motivate as much as it once did.

Second, the study uses a population sample that excludes those who are unemployed, or underemployed in the largest sector of the economy, the smaller businesses who do not qualify to participate in this study. For these people pay is a basic need not being satisfied. Keep in mind that, the key finding in question is based on the 'consulting and research' group of participants. This group is most likely made up of highly compensated individuals. Naturally, for the unemployed and underemployed, pay trumps trust, pride, or camaraderie any day. But the study makes the assumption that pay as a basic need has already been satisfied. This would explain why people who participated in the study would rank other factors as more important.

To me, the practical take away for all employers is this. Employers need to be fair about pay and wages, no question about that! But for employers to be truly competitive over the long term, they must institute practices that promote employee well-being, satisfaction, and engagement. And those factors have less to do with money and a lot more to do with the intangibles.

Of course, this is no guarantee and yes, there are exceptions. Yes, good pay will get you an employee who does the work, and probably well. But a great place to work where intangibles abound, will get you employees who create, innovate, improve, collaborate, and take care of your business. And that's worth striving for.

Image by vichie81 / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

What's Wrong with Stakeholder Analysis?

Recent work with a client reminded me of something I wanted to share with others. Many years ago when I started giving change management seminars, I noticed a pattern that I did not like. When we covered the concept of stakeholder analysis, inevitably someone (usually more than one) would express concern, even fear about using this most commonly used tool. Their concerns?

• What if someone sees the document?
• What if so and so found out we labeled them as "not supportive"?
• How do we even know for sure they aren't supportive?
• Why would you NOT want anyone to be 'strongly supportive' anyway?

You see, traditional stakeholder analysis (see example below), a key staple in change management, works like this: The group makes a list of stakeholders. They then agree on the current vs. the desired level of support of each stakeholder using either a numbered scale or a labeled scale. Labels can vary from quite benign such as 'supportive' to 'non-supportive', to quite pejorative such as 'laggards' or 'resistors.' What's worse, often these evaluations are based on hear-say and group think. So, my students had a point!

And we'd usually spend several minutes of class time addressing the concerns for which I really didn't have a good answer. After a while, I tired of trying to defend the tool, so I abandoned the traditional stakeholder analysis tool for good and developed a different, more useful (I think) approach. Instead of labeling, I wanted to empathize. Instead of analyzing, I wanted to understand. I wanted to empathize with the stakeholder and understand why they would or would not support the change effort.

The approach? Have a conversation with them or with someone who really understands them. The questions?

1. IMPACT: How will they be affected or impacted? How is the stakeholder involved in the change effort? What will they need to do differently?
2. BENEFIT: What will be a gain or benefit to the stakeholder? What would they consider a real win?
3. CONCERN: What concerns might the stakeholder have about the change? What would they consider a losing proposition? What issues do they see related to the change?

There is more to stakeholder work than this, but the key concept is this:

Maximize the benefits + Minimize the concerns = Support

That's it! No fancy Os and Xs, no psychoanalysis, no labels, no risk. Just plain old fashion communication that gets to the real reasons for why stakeholders decide to support or not support the change. Sure, it may not look as nice as an Os and Xs chart. However, this approach has several benefits:

1. It provides much more and richer information through real discussion.
2. It uncovers and challenges assumptions.
3. It is non-judgmental, no need to label people.
4. Best of all, after the dialogue, you'll have a very good idea about how to influence someone who might not be excited about the change.

Give it a try next time you need to influence people to 'buy into' a change that is not their idea. You might be surprised how well it works. I'd love to hear your comments and your experience.

'People Resist Change' ...Really? Maybe Not

That people naturally resist change is a common held view and one we hear all the time!

But one that does not explain why people adopt new technology faster than never before. Just think about all the madness around the iPhone 5, which was much ado about nothing after all! Still, according to technology news outlets, about half of ALL cell phone users are planning to upgrade to the new iPhone 5 (when it finally comes out). Die hards of all types of technology campout outside stores before opening day to be the first to get the coveted new toy! OK, so, that's not everyone. But does that look like people resist change? No, I don't think so.

Look at the data from February 2008, only a year after the first iPhone (now a relic), and well before the era of the tablet and the surge of the touch screen do-it-all smartphones everybody seems to have now.

Source: Visualizing Economics. Original by Nicholas Felton. U.S. data only. 

A more detailed graph I found reflecting data through 2010 shows the same trend: technology adoption rates continue to accelerate. This is particularly true of high tech for personal use. For instance, while it took many decades for some technologies like the telephone or the clothes washer to become mainstream, other technologies like the VCR or the cell phone took only a few years to become essential necessities.

So, do people resist change? Not really.

WHAT PEOPLE RESIST IS BEING CHANGED!

Think about it. If a company suddenly mandated that all employees must now use a particular type of smart phone, say iPhone, nearly all BlackBerry, Motorola, and other users would be unhappy about giving up their phones! Why is the company in the business of mandating phone usage anyway? Yes, people would object, even resist!

But not on our own. On our own, we happily shell out the money to adopt new technology (most of which we never fully use or understand) and in the process change our habits, sometimes drastically. Why? Well, first because the old solution no longer is good enough (gotta 'upgrade' that old phone I bought only a year ago!), also because we see the benefit, because it's change on our own terms and it's our idea, because we have invested in it, and let's face it, many times it's because we don't want to be outdone...others have one and we want one too!

Then, what's the lesson for organizational change? How can a change leader increase adoption for change?

1. Create Dissatisfaction: Make sure people know that the new is better than the old, really. When people are dissatisfied enough with the status quo, they are more likely to change.
2. Show Benefit: Let people discover the benefit of the change. Don't just tell them...that's like telling your 5-year old to eat his spinach because they are good for his body. How many times has that worked?
3. Create Ownership: Invite people to come to terms with their own reasons for the change. Invite them to  either design the change or how to implement it. Make it their idea, truthfully, do not just 'let them think it's their idea' because they will see right through it.
4. Involve Others: The more they are involved in the design and/or implementation, the more invested they will be. They might even take pride in the change instead of fighting it.
5. Role Model: Show role models, influential people who can exert positive peer pressure on others to adopt the change.

So, let us stop thinking that people will inevitably resist change and do what it takes to increase the chance that they will champion the change. Technology adoption shows us it can be done!

Three Proven Strategies for Successful Group Dialogue

Image by David Castillo Dominici

I was recently contributed this article to Leadership Strategies, based on a previous post on The Role of the Six Sigma Black Belt as a Facilitator. This version is for a broader audience and explores three proven strategies for successfully facilitating productive group dialogue.

In the world of continuous and process improvement, practitioners range from quality engineers, to lean specialists, to six sigma black belts (and green belts), to a variety of other titles and labels. They all share certain things in common:

• All are interested in improving business results by improving processes.
• All use some methodology or toolset to do their work. Most have specialized training or certifications in such tools.
• All face the opportunity (or challenge) of working with people as they facilitate dialogue.

Many years ago, as new Six Sigma Black Belt, I learned the importance of my role as a facilitator. I was with a team of IT programmers to develop a SIPOC (a tool that identifies the inputs, outputs, suppliers, and customers for each step of a process) of the testing process for new software. To start, I asked a logical and straightforward question..."what are the process steps for testing new software?"

Surprisingly, the group seemed stumped. They obviously knew the answer; after all, they were subject matter experts. So I asked the same question again twice more but with the same outcome...silence!

I had recently learned how to formulate what I call ‘facilitative questions’ and I decided to give it a try. I asked...

"Imagine that I am a new employee...and that you have been assigned to train me on how to test new software. Where would you start and what information would I need to test new software?" 

It was like magic. The information came pouring. Fast!

I could elaborate on the technique but the point is this: Effective questions can be one of the most powerful tools an improvement professional can use to engage a team. Like effective questions, there are other facilitation strategies that could help an improvement professional engage people in ways that can lead to extraordinary results. From years of experience in a variety of settings, here are three proven strategies for successful dialogue:

I. Clarify the ‘Why’ and ‘What’ of the Meeting 
Effective meetings have a clear purpose (why?) and specific outcomes or deliverables (what?).

Purpose: First, ask yourself ‘why is this meeting necessary?’ ‘Could the same be accomplished via email or a phone call?. A meeting could have different purposes such as:

• Sharing information (e.g. status meetings)
• Reaching a decision (e.g. gate keeping meetings)
• Planning work (e.g. strategic planning)
• Producing work (e.g. team offsites)

It is important to point out that depending on your purpose, the meeting deliverables and design will be different.

Outcomes: Second, you must ask yourself ‘what product should we walk out with at the end of this meeting?’ If you can’t answer that question, either the meeting is not necessary, or the purpose is not clear. Try using the verb+noun combination. For example, if the purpose of the meeting is to ‘decide the future of project X’, the deliverables could include:

• Revise (verb) business case for project (noun)
• Quantify benefits/cost outlook for the next year
• Decide whether to stop or continue
• Develop alternative recommendation(s)

Clear purpose and tangible outcomes make it more likely that the right people will be there, that they will engage effectively, and that the meeting will yield productive work.

II. Planning the Meeting 
Planning the meeting is the HOW. Once purpose and deliverables are clear you can determine:

• The topics
• The flow (sequence)
• The structure (questions, interventions, etc.)
• Logistical requirements

When considering structure, think about ‘How will you elicit participation from the "prisoner" in the room?’ or ‘How will you prevent the monopolizer from taking over?’ or ‘How will you react if one of your buttons is pushed?’

As with project work, “well planned IS half done” in facilitation. Meetings rarely go as planned, but planning can prepare the facilitator for the unanticipated dynamics that will surely happen.

III. Managing Process vs. Content. 
Managing content and process is probably the most difficult aspect of the role of the facilitator, particularly for improvement professionals. However, it is one of the keys to working with people and to successful project outcomes.

Content refers to what is discussed (topics) while process is how the content is discussed (dynamics). Recognizing the difference is the first step. Improvement professionals, who also play the roles of the expert and/or project manager, may feel more comfortable focusing on content because that is the ‘real work’ and they are measured by it. Here are three tips for managing process:

• Pay attention to body language. Watch for such things as facial expressions and posture, to better understand how content is being processed or received by all participants.
• Pay attention to tone and volume of voice. Conversation plays out differently in different cultures (compare an Italian vs. Japanese conversation over dinner for instance); however, watch for voice inflexions, speed, and even silence. This can tell you much about how engaged participants are, how someone feels about a particular point, or whether there is a meeting of the minds (e.g. violent agreement).
• Pay attention to who is talking to whom and how much. Imagine creating a dialogue map of the meeting. The table in the middle, the participants around it, and lines that represent the direction of an exchange between two or more people. The map would look like an airline route map you might find in an airline magazine. Mentally mapping out these dynamics can tell you something about the relationships in the room, where the high and low pressure points are, and how the influence is flowing. You can then intervene to help the group be as effective as possible.

In all cases, the secret is to pay attention, to observe with your eyes, as well as your ears. This makes you aware of the context of the discussion and enables you to modify your plan.

Obviously there is much more to facilitation than I can cover here. My intent is to create awareness about the importance of the facilitator role for improvement professionals. Whether your team gets stuck on a question or a whole tool, chances are that effective facilitation will help.

Having trained hundreds of Continuous Improvement professionals on change management and facilitation, I am confident saying that facilitation is just as much an art as it is a science (literally!). Though some may have a natural knack for it, facilitation is a skill that can absolutely be learned, and one that will make any improvement professional a much more effective and successful change agent.