![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/o.png?w=64\")
nce upon a time, there were two organizations undergoing significant transformations. One morning, while taking a random walk, a consultant named Goldilocks came across their project plans. She scratched her head in wonder at the dates and timelines, the org charts and communication matrixes, because nothing looked just right.<\/em><\/p>\nWhen launching \u201cimprovement efforts\u201d \u2013 that is, trying to change<\/u> something about the organization \u2013 executives and Worse, leaders read something on the Internet \u2013 \u201cFive Things You Must Do Exactly Right\u201d or some such \u2013 and believe that there is but one objective way to pursue their Change efforts. Comparing advice uncovers frequently-contradictory \u201crules\u201d, if taken at face value.<\/p>\n As our titular hero discovered while sampling the Bear family\u2019s porridge, there are many options \u2013 but only one that is \u201cJust Right\u201d for the situation.<\/p>\n In lieu of hard-and-fast prescriptions, here are some areas to consider.<\/a><\/p>\n When leaders are not aligned with the need for change, they can become defensive and protective of their status quo. Internal squabbling leads to political infighting, and people start actively trying to block<\/em> change.<\/p>\n Some companies overcompensate by putting effort into ensuring unanimous buy-in. You will see multiple rounds of \u201cchange readiness\u201d and subsequent \u201cclimate surveys\u201d. You hear phrases such as, \u201cWe need to meet them where they\u2019re at.\u201d Defensive and\/or stubborn employees receive an inordinate amount of attention to ensure that the message \u201cresonates\u201d with them. Hard, but necessary, choices are softened to reduce friction.<\/p>\n What is \u201cJust Right\u201d?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n When a super-majority of leaders, say two-thirds, shares the need to act, it should be safe to proceed. A cross-functional, cross-seniority-level coalition, with actual power, can build agreement among managers and line level employees.<\/p>\n Recognize that less than one-eighth of employees get on board immediately; about a third will remain skeptical until the first sign of success, and three-quarters of the remainder will wait until there is no risk involved (the rest never adapt). This can take years! Focus on that super-majority with leaders and that group of early adopters from the ranks. Proper alignment there provides a core for success.<\/p>\n When facing crises, teams attempt every conceivable solution, believing that, statistically, they will stumble across the right one. Focusing too narrowly can also presage disaster. Good change agents, like good project managers, set a destination and chart a course. Changing conditions can knock even the best of them off that course, so those with only one path to follow become lost. Bomber pilots are warned of \u201ctarget fixation\u201d: the more intently they focus on the objective, the more likely they are to ignore their environment \u2013 and crash into the target.<\/p>\n What is \u201cJust Right\u201d?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n A good charter should articulate the goals (or objectives) of the change, as specifically as possible. This accomplishes three tasks:<\/p>\n When the proverbial seas change, or competition reacts unpredictably, go back to the objectives and adjust. When \u201cnew\u201d ideas are introduced \u2013 no matter how great they sound or feel \u2013 if they don\u2019t accomplish the objectives, they stay out of the plan. Once the change is implemented, and people begin to settle, then it is safe to (re)open the scope.<\/p>\n Staving off resistance by creating a large, diverse advisory seems brilliantly democratic; it quickly becomes unwieldy and bureaucratic, and, paradoxically, allows Change Resistors to strengthen their own coalition. Spreading Centralizing all decision-making authority into a single, autocratic, Change Czar seems to provide both maximum accountability and efficiency. The change effort, though, becomes personality-driven; people will buy in, or not, based on their sympathies towards that one person\u2019s quest.<\/p>\n What is \u201cJust Right\u201d?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n A guiding coalition is the smart play, but it should be just that \u2013 an advisory body to present diverse viewpoints, hash out contradictory positions, and ultimately support the Change. To avoid descending into bureaucracy, actual decision making should be relegated to a smaller, more agile steering group. As the project continues, members can be added and\/or swapped to maintain freshness.<\/p>\n Regardless, its work and decisions should be visible. Employees should know what is being discussed, and who has the answers they need.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![\"people\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/08\/people.png?w=200\")
<\/a>
\nmanagers often want concrete answers in advance. Understandably risk-averse, they frequently demand, and consultants supply (I am as guilty as any) specific data: \u201cIt will take you six weeks to do this\u201d, \u201cYou need eight people from these five divisions on a committee that meets twice a month to discuss these six bullet points…\u201d<\/p>\nAlignment<\/h4>\n
ABC Company \u201creacted with urgency\u201d: Lacking patience, the COO announced a big \u201ctransformation\u201d and made promises to clients, while the rest of the executive team was still processing the need for change. They moved too fast. XYZ Corp. recognized that moving quickly has great risk, so leaders worked with managers until there was universal agreement for the need to change; to protect morale, XYZ made sure no employee was left behind during implementation. They fell further and further behind. They moved too slow.<\/h3>\n
Scope<\/h4>\n
ABC Company, faced with eroding market position, was willing to \u201ctry anything\u201d to reclaim the top spot. In fact, they (over)eagerly tried \u201ceverything\u201d: Any seemingly good idea, from product extensions to sales territory redistricting, was thrown into the mix. They were too broad. XYZ Corp. was much more disciplined, and defined its goal in very specific terms. They relentlessly pursued this singular ambition, distracting leaders from changing market conditions \u2013 and an employee base losing faith in the effort. They were too narrow.<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/spag.jpg?w=300\")
These tactics waste resources \u2013 peoples\u2019 efforts, dollars, calendar time \u2013 and sow frustration. Frequently tossing new ideas into an ongoing effort only confuses people and dilutes its message. (\u201cAre we trying to get our sales team closer to the market, or are we trying to chase the cost-conscious calorie-counting caffeine addict?\u201d) The more added, the less each retains its urgency. \u201cEverything\u201d becomes nothing. This is classic scope creep.<\/p>\n\n
Accountability<\/h4>\n
Executives at XYZ Corp. read the part above about \u201cAlignment\u201d<\/a> and created a Steering Committee to guide its change efforts. It represented all functions and levels of the hierarchy: Vice Presidents, regional directors, staff. Managers leading the change reported weekly, seeking guidance for crucial decisions. It was difficult to get everyone on the coalition together (even virtually), so each meeting reviewed and relitigated previous decisions; on the rare occasions when quorum was met, politics and infighting took over. It was too diffuse. ABC Company appointed an Outcome Manager and invested her with discretion and accountability; she had the Board\u2019s complete trust. Every decision ran through her, which became exhausting and stressful, to say nothing of the backlog created. Additionally, employees stopped referring to the upcoming changes by the program name, or even \u201cthe Change\u201d, and simply referred to \u201cTrina\u2019s project\u201d. It was so closely associated with her that, once she moved on to another role, all impetus left with her. They were too acute.<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/capitol-720677_1280.jpg?w=150\")
accountability too widely reduces individual influence, making it difficult for any one person to see how his actions contribute to the whole.<\/p>\nRespect the Change<\/h4>\n
ABC Company had already clearly communicated a goal; soon, executives communicated a date that The Change would go into effect. All efforts were geared toward that Zero-Day (what some soon called \u201cBlack Tuesday\u201d). Messaging was clear: there would be Business-As-Usual, then The Change, and then New Business-As-Usual. One, two, three; bing, bang, boom. They were too blunt. XYZ Corp recognized that \u201cchange is a process\u201d. Ongoing newsletters, emails, and meetings led to Change Fatigue; employees never actually understood where they were in the process, or if it would ever be done. They were too gradual.<\/h3>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/b-spoke.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/driveway-dollar-bill-martha-and-pooh-130.jpg?w=150\")
<\/a>The immediate effects<\/u> of change might be seen immediately \u2013 where people sit, what they talk about and with whom \u2013 but the results<\/u> of a change effort take time. Treating a transformation as a \u201cthing\u201d \u2013 a singular, discrete event \u2013builds awareness and urgency, but discounts the effort needed to effectively implement. Changes need time to absorb into a company\u2019s culture. Significant, fundamental change can take years. That can be tough, even for those that are prepared to work through that period. Without seeing progress over a significant period of time, proponents grow weary and resistors grow bold.<\/p>\n