Agents2Change - Smart Business Thinking

All Change is personal - so put the personality back into change management

Anyone in business or part of a large organisation will not have escaped the rise and rise  of change management programs, they are everywhere.  Executives fret over doing it ‘right’ and employees fret over having it ‘done’ to them.  But ask anyone to describe what it is and we often find that there is little consensus of opinion.

It was Heraclitus that said ‘Change is the only Constant’ as we see in the ever changing seasons in nature.  And yet it is the very act of change that seems to be so difficult for organisations, and the larger the organisation, the more difficult that change appears to be.  Yet the view of the ‘status quo’ is only an illusion that we cling to.  For the organisation that you step into today is not the same as the one that you worked at yesterday, even if on the surface everything appears as it was; indefinable changes in people, processes, customers or products have occurred in the intervening hours between one dawn and the next.

We do of course have to use the logical tools of change management (roadmaps, project plans, gap analysis etc.)  to make things happen when we want to effect a change in direction or performance, but only in as much as it is the navigation tools that help us along our journey.  The real change has to happen in the hearts and minds of the individual, there has to be an intention to change for it to be successful.

 

The important dialogue that needs to occur is around some fundamental questions such as:

• What is getting in the way of us making these changes? 
• What are we holding onto in terms of core beliefs, attitudes or ritualised behaviours that gets in the way of making these changes?
• Why do our people not feel empowered to make the required changes?

 

In organisations big and small it can often come down to issues such as:

 

1. A parent to child relationship between the employer and the employee –  a ‘we tell you do’ attitude that is pervasive though every level of management
2. Blame is the default reaction to problems – there is little or no tolerance to good old fashioned human error.  In fact it is preferred that mistakes are glossed over rather than unearthed and learnings taken from them.  It is more important in this type of culture for managers and leaders to ‘save face’ rather than hold open a discussion on potential shortcomings.
3. A belief that nothing can ever go wrong – this is particularly strong in growing organisations or those that have not yet plateaued.  A feeling of invincibility pervades the culture often resulting in early warning signs being filtered out until the issues start to seriously harm internal performance or customer loyalty.

But if we view change management as an organic process, we can see a more holistic and encompassing approach to managing change; one that is based on clear simple changes at the individual level of leaders, managers and operators.  By focusing on tangible steps, new patterns of working and allowing time for reflection and tolerance for mistakes, it is possible to create the momentum for change and give people the confidence to take the risks, make the decisions and try out new and unchartered paths.  This can be done by:

• stating the reasons for change, what the journey will look like and why the destination is better than the current position and sharing this honestly with all employees in simple and engaging terms,
• giving employees every opportunity to get involved and make things happen (and that also means not overcrowding the space with external experts – speaking as one) and taking some chances on the untested talent that comes forward,
• regularly informing employees of how progress is made, sharing the good, the bad and if necessary the ugly stories, so that they understand and can continue to feel engaged in the process.

What do you think?  Have you examples of change management from your organisations or projects that you would like to share here?

Agents2Change specialises in Change Management, Implementation and Performance Management.  For more information visit us at www.agents2change.com

When Implementation gets tough – three strategies that might help Leaders succeed

Today’s global companies are driven by projects.  Projects to implement new processes; projects to implement new systems; projects to outsource; projects to insource, you name it and they will be doing it.  The challenge that they often face is how to access the implementation skills to ensure that the project is delivered on-time and in a relatively pain-free way.

If Leaders are asked to take on this role as part of their day job it can be very challenging for three  reasons:

• The pace and needs of an implementation project is very different from that of business as usual leadership.  Getting the style, approach and finding the energy to do this alongside running the day job can be very demanding and it is frequently under estimated.
• Implementation by its very nature often means stepping on someone’s toes.  If Leaders are uncomfortable causing ripples they can shy away from having difficult (and usually long overdue) conversations with other parts of the organisation to address areas of blockage.
• Implementation requires a fair degree of honesty to address inefficiencies that you the Leader may have turned a blind eye to for a long time.  This may involve upsetting trusted and favoured employees as their roles and responsibilities are tested or changed by the implementation project. 

 

So how can Leaders continue to stay focused and have the energy to continue to lead implementation when the going is getting tough?  Some things that will help include:

 

1. Self awareness is key: Be aware of how change affects you and others and how to support people through it.    There are many models that can help with this such as The Change Curve (below) which explains simply all of the different phases that we go through as we undergo change.  Nobody is immune from it, but self-awareness and acknowledgement goes a long way to mitigating the issues.  Understanding where you are in the process can help you to recognise the signs and the stages that your team are at and know how to respond to them.
   
   
   
2. Belief is essential:  We have all heard the phrase ‘Failure is not an Option’ but that could be turned into a far more motivating phrase such as ‘Success is our only option’.  Even if there are private moments when the leader has a loss of faith in the implementation program, publicly they should always be encouraging, motivating and upbeat with their team. 
3. Responsive trumps planning: The plan is only the best guess at the time of what is required to implement successfully, but the key to success is in how to respond to the roadblocks along the way.  Modern mythology tells us that the US Moon Mission in the 1960's was off-plan 90% of the time  What the team became very good at was ‘on-the-job’ problem solving.  So whilst we are not saying that you don't need a plan (Fail to plan, plan to fail - right?) as a leader, you need to rely on more than the plan.  And the more is the role you can play to create the kind of collaborative team environment where problems can be raised, discussed and solutions created by your team.  This is both skill building and deeply motivating for your people whilst in the midst of heavy-duty Implementation.

Have you some implementation experiences that you would like to share?  Do you have other tips of what makes implementation a success?  Please do share them here.  Or if you would like to hear more about our experience of implementation – contact us on [email protected]

Related articles

Conscious Leadershp - some wise words from Deepak Chopra

Myers Briggs - which type are you?

Three ways to motivate staff to run a more efficient business

The Social Manifestation of Cheon Il Guk by Sallyann Goodall/Franklin PhD (UTS'93)

 

Look beyond the skills, see the soul

Deepak Chopra is a hugely influential figure in the fields of Leaderships, self awareness and well being.  In this article he challenges the way that we find new talent for our organisations. 

Chopra reminds us that recruitment is not just a match of skills to role, but a connection of a people to an organisation, its culture and its values.  Here he gives us some great questions to consider when next recruiting. 

 

Since my life's work has always focused on self-awareness and well being, I have made those two attributes the criterion for people I want to work with. In my course, The Soul of Leadership, I advise employers not only to get references and bios from prospective employees, but also to engage with them before hiring in creating a "Soul Profile". Here are the questions that we ask when we create a soul profile:

via www.linkedin.com  

Take a look at the full article here.  Does this resonate with you?  Are these the type of questions that you can imagine asking of your candidates.  Type a comment here.  Or if you want to know more about how we can help you to get a soul based approach to recruitment, management and leadership, contact us at [email protected]. 

Getting to grips with prioritisation

Prioritisation is a great concept when you have the space and time to do it.  The trouble for busy managers and executives is that they often don’t.  They find that their already stretched capacity continues to be spread thinner and thinner, as the responsibilities and priorities increase.  It can become a vicious circle that is very difficult to break.

 

“Jack had a demanding role as head of operations for a global manufacturing group.  He had always been good a delegating and getting things done and had worked his way up from junior management to his current role and was good at thriving under pressure and delivering against all the odds.

Lately however the demands of his peers and his directors in this matrixed organisation were becoming overwhelming.  Everything was urgent; every was a 'Strategic' initiative with a Board member behind it; and saying no was just not an option.  As a result, he and his team felt like they were working their way into the ground.”

 

Jack’s situation is not unusual, and in modern matrixed organisations, competing priorities are often evident.  But prioritisation needs two key levers in order to be most effective.  

1. It needs to be clearly linked to the company strategy.  When new lines of business or new sectors are targeted, then efforts need to be justified in terms of how they support this strategy.
2. Efforts must show a relationship to the bottom line. Strategic initiatives are almost always linked to growth, but it's not unusual for senior managers to lose sight of this; and the relationship of their teams in delivering it.  At the end of the day, or your performance year;  you will be measured as much by business performance as you will on any other target that has been set.

 

Some tips to help you with prioritisations include: 

• Ensure that your annual performance targets are clear and comprehensive.  They become your employment contract for the year ahead, so a clear and well documented set of priorities will help you when the pressure starts to build.
• Where there are priority conflicts, such as competing department goals, escalate this through the hierarchy for resolution  (up to the board if necessary) rather than getting in the cross fire with peers or functional directors.
• Always keep the consequences of non-delivery clear in your mind.  Some targets will have minimal impact, whilst others may have a major impact further down the line. Consider the inter-connectivity of some priorities, which may not be your immediate concern, but will have a major impact for other areas of the business further down the line.  If it becomes a major resource drain on your area, ensure it gets included in your annual targets.

 

If you would like to hear more about how our coaching packages can help you to become better at prioritising, contact us at:  [email protected], for a free, no obligation chat.

 

We can also provide public speaking engagements on the subject of prioritisation.  Contact us at:  [email protected]

The Five Personalities of Innovators: Which One Are You? - Forbes

We have just completed a two-parter on personality types  (Myers Briggs and the Four Temperaments, and as if to complement that, Forbes have just published this article on the five personalities of innovators.

The Forbes Insights study surveyed more than 1,200 executives in Europe across a range of topics and themes. Using a series of questions about their attitudes, beliefs, priorities and behaviors, coupled with a look at the external forces that can either foster – or desiccate – an innovative environment, a picture emerged of five key personality types the play a role in the innovation cycle.

Are you a:

Movers & Shakers;
Controllers;
Star Pupil;
Experimenter;
Or a
Hanger on?

 

 

 

Read More here:  via www.forbes.com

 

 

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues. We regularly use personality frameworks for leadership, team and organisational development.  If you’d like to know more contact us at:  [email protected]

Trouble at the Bleeding Edge – Or how the Mighty Fall

Earlier this week we talked about challenges at the Leading edge of change.  But what about at the other end of the spectrum?  It’s a salutary reminder of the unrelenting pace of change, when you hear that Eastman Kodak have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  It is a mighty fall from grace, given the near monopoly status that Kodak held in the world of photography for over 125 years.  Yet it is also a stark reminder of the dramatic changes that our digital based economy has wrought. 

Kodak was once viewed amongst the world’s most innovative companies, providing innovation not only in the camera but also in the development and print field of photography.  Yet in the last 30 years it has gradually slipped further and further from the mainstream, as smaller more agile competitors, better able to respond to the rising tide of digital technology started to take its place, alongside that of the multi-media smartphone. 

Management arrogance is one of the accusations for its demise.   Yet perhaps its biggest failing was not realizing that the moment to change had arrived and passed it by; quietly and swiflty.   It is one of life’s truisms that the moment to change, is just when everything seems to be going swimmingly.  It is at the point of our greatest successes when we have to consider its demise and therefore the need to innovate and change. 

The Danger of resting on one’s laurels

Whilst Kodak fades to black, we can see a similar struggle occurring with Research in Motion's (RIMs) Blackberry.  Once the smartphone of choice for Executives around the world, it has become more and more obscured by the rise of Apple products and the demand for tablet-based technologies. 

Blackberry like Kodak is accused of failing to read the market conditions and consumer choices.  Being unclear where its core market base lies – ‘are we the smartphone for executives, or the consumer product for young people?’.  This fuzzy marketing focus has led to inconsistent R&D (such as the disastrous launch of the Storm and Playbook and the lack of a single OS platform for software development).

Fuzzy leadership  and poor engagement are also cited for Blackberry's demise.  As we fully embed ourselves in the digital age, companies that fail to provide a figurehead to tell their story, or those that don't engage their customers through the infinite options of social media are at risk of being ignored, overlooked and eventually shunned completely by their once loyal customers.

Engagement & responsive-ness, the new watchwords

How can you ensure that you are listening to and engaging your customers as you develop your products and services?

• The world’s most innovative companies all have a strong and clear strategy, communicated by a strong and clear leader
• Using social media – twitter, facebook, youtube etc., as well as the traditional media channels ensures the widest possible circulation
• Creating closed loop marketing opportunities e.g. Once an Apple product owner, one naturally migrates to the next Apple product.
• Anticipating rather than responding to trends – this one of course is the silver bullet, but the world’s most innovate see this as their raison d’étre.  What are you doing to anticipate?

About us

Agents2change works with some of the world's largest companies on change and implementation issues.  We'd love to hear your thoughts on this blog, innovation or change in general.  Share your comments here or email us on [email protected]

Examing Culture #2 - Is Hofstede's view of Culture relevant?

Hofstede is seen as one of the key writers and proponents of cultural theory, through his research in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and to which he has continued to add.  His research was based on employees within one organisation – IBM and covered over 116,000 responses, 72 national subsidiaries and 20 language, taking the data at two points in time over a four year period.  When first published, over 20 years ago, it was one of the most extensive pieces of research in the area of culture and lead to some critical thinking of what characteristics are observable in different national cultures.

The central premise to Hofstede’s work is that Culture and cultural identity are learned attributes developed over time and he coined the process ‘mental programming’.  

 

We can see how culture is ever-changing, in the ways that values and priorities change from one generation to another.  For example, we can see if we look back at key decades in UK society, that values changed from:  Being frugal and economical in the 1940’s  (key themes: ‘War’ and ‘Rations’); being hard-working and strong family values in the 1950’s  (key themes:  Post-war Industrial growth); being expressive and freedom of speech in the 1960’s  (key themes: Feminism, Free Love, Student Revolts); being politically aware and experiencing hardships in the 1970’s  (Increased political unrest, widespread strikes and large scale unemployment).  Thus we can say that culture is at the same time traditional yet ever changing.  The shifts in cultural values are harder to view in the day-to-day, but evident when looked at through a longer lens. 

This brings some interesting challenges to modern day multi-nationals, as it means that cultural identity and values needs to be understood and observed to a point, but that people are open to and willing to change their values and priorities if it makes sense for them to do so. 

Culture can feel like an intangible and hard to grasp concept, yet it is both general – i.e. definable at a national or continental level; but also specific – i.e. definable at an organisational, team and even family level.   And for each of these situations a new set of norms might be applied. 

Hofstede originally defined  four dimensions of culture as a way of mapping and explaining differences in national cultures.  If we look at how European countries map out on these dimensions, we see some interesting patterns:

Each dimensions looks at a different aspect of human interactions:

1.            Power Distance:  Defining and prioritizing power in their environments – e.g.. how much are hierarchies respected and maintained

2.            Uncertainty Avoidance: How important is it to know what is coming next and how much effort is invested into avoiding uncertainty

3.            Individualism ‘v’ Collectivisim:  What is more important – to be known and respected as an individual or to be part of and respected as part of a community (or group effort)

4.            Masculine ‘v’ Feminine:     “Masculinity pertains to societies in which social gender roles are clearly distinct and focused on material success; femininity pertains to societies in which social gender roles overlaps (i.e. both men and women are supposed to be modest, tender and concerned with quality of life)” (Hofstede P.82)

To these original dimensions, a fifth was added – Long Term’v’ Short Term Orientation.

 

The dimensions give us a frame of reference in which to consider and view culture, and it does allow us to perhaps explain differences that emerge across different countries, even in one geographic regions such as Europe.  However Hofstede was at pains to point out that the purpose of his cultural landscape was not to allow us to fall in to the trap of stereotyping countries and national cultures.  Far from it, Hofstede believed that by having a frame of reference, we could free ourselves up from our own cultural bias, to look at cultures with a more objective lens. 

There are a number of issues with Hofstede’s study methods and conclusions, which remind us of the need to treat it critically.  The first is that the data is focused around the respondents in one organisation – IBM.  Whilst an organisation of sufficient size  (well over 120,000 employees at the time of the research) to provide a statistically significant sample, but that does not mean it is representative on a national level.    

Blodgett et al (2008) after examining Hofstede’s model conclude that “Hofstede’s cultural instrument lacks sufficient validity when applied at the individual unit of analysis”.  McSweeney B (2002) goes further to systematically deconstruct and debunk his theories stating that “The scale problem of Hofstede’s research is radially compounded by the narrowness of the population surveyed” and that Hofstede oversimplified the importance of organisational culture as a component and a relevant factor when matching samples across countries.  Yet despite this criticism, I think that St Claire-Ostwald (2007) offers wise words when she states  “To reject totally Hofstede’s or similar functionalist models of national culture, before more satisfactory models have been developed, would be to throw away valuable insight.”

Hofstede’s model still has influence on our current thinking of Culture and its interpretation.  One can see his influence in other important models, such as those of Trompenaars and GLOBE, which will be covered in the next section of this series. 

Culture is ever-present and all-pervasive and however much we want to imagine that business as usual can continue without it, it cannot.  However by becoming more aware of it, is the first step in managing its consequences.

Please share your thoughts or experiences on cross cultural management here, or email us if you would like to find out more about our work in this area at [email protected]

 

Further Reading:

Blodgett J, Bakir A &  Rose G (2008)  A Test of the Validity of Hofstede’s Cultural Framework, Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 35)

Hofstede G (1994) Cultures and Organizations: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival; Software of the Mind, London: HarperCollins

McSweeney, B. (2000). Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: A triumph of faith – a failure of analysis. Human Relations, 55(1), 89-118.

St Claire-Ostwald B (2007) Carrying Cultural Baggage: the contribution of socio-cultural anthropology to cross-cultural coaching, International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring 5(2), 45-52

 

Corporate & Functions # 3 – Role Clarity – Who should be doing what?

In this mini-series we are looking at the role and value that functions can play in supporting large global corporations.  The second of our five areas is role clarity within Functions. 

Although there is a logical and clear argument for the need for functions, in practice the 'what & how' of functional contribution to business success can be blurred.  This confusion can be a symptom of unclear strategy or the lack of clarification at key points during the organisation’s growth and diversification. 

The frustration that is felt by the businesses when there is this confusion is palpable.  In their need for quick, responsive and appropriate services they can sometimes resort to extreme measures including the creation of ‘shadow’ functions within their segment. In one global financial services provider this had become a common way of overcoming corporate obstacles, leading to a plethora of IT and finance systems within the group.

The coordination between functions when they implement cross-functional or group-wide processes can also lead to breakdowns in communication.   Businesses can be overwhelmed by the latest imperative from Finance Function, whilst in the middle of a major IT implementation.  The deadlines compete or over-ride one and other, leaving the businesses overwrought and under-resourced.  A global credit risk insurer were implementing a mult-strand major strategy overhaul and  soon ran into the ground with their implementation efforts.  It became clear that the reason for this was that there were simply too many corporate centres making requests of the business units, leading to high levels of tension and communication breakdown.

One tool that can help clarify roles is called the RACI.  It records who is Responsible for doing a task; who is ultimately Accountable for getting it done; who needs to be Consulted before a decision is made; and who needs to be Informed that something is changing.  It’s a simple yet very effective tool to bring about clarity.  

 

 

In our next instalment we will look at Achieving Operational Excellence.  If you have experiences you wish to share, please comment here or contact us at [email protected]

Corporate & Functions # 2 – Quality of Leadership within & across Functions

In this mini-series we are looking at the role and value that functions can play in supporting large global corporations.  The first of our five areas is Leadership within Functions. 

There are many reasons why leadership is, or is perceived as poorer within the functions rather than in the line.  Sometimes it is about the culture of the organisation.  If the business / segment are encouraged to be independent and autonomous, then Functions can sometimes play second fiddle.  This has the result of undermining the confidence & leadership of the Functions.  Similarly, if the pendulum has swung too much towards the Functions – which is a phenomenon frequently experienced after a lot of merger & acquisition activity - the rush to consolidate to one business identity and creating a ‘one size fits all’ solution can lead to poorly thought out services or policies that are not fit for purpose in the various business environments. 

In both these situations the functional leadership has a critical (& somewhat overlooked) role.  Too often the organisation in its frustration can either parachute in excellent business (line) managers who have a reputation for turnaround situations in the field, but with very little technical understanding of the functions role.  Leaders parachuted in in this way can feel overwhelmed in a new and very different environment and in some situations feel overlooked by the organisation.  Additionally the lack of technical skill can result in poorly thought out or mis-aligned interventions for the businesses.  In one Supermajor oil company a business leader was parachuted in to run the HR function with disastrous results, by oversimplifying the model and the HR offer and increasing frustration felt by the business. 

The other extreme is the Group CEO in his or her frustration hires in a technical expert with a strong track record to oversee the function/ functions without the history of the organisation’s culture, the danger is that in their rush to make an impact, the business can feel browbeaten into accepting changes that seem out of synch with the way that ‘things are done around here’. 

Neither is a good outcome and the ideal middle ground between the two; a leader who understands the technical requirements of the function, whilst still being highly attuned to the needs of the business – which may indeed be quite diverse and even contradictory.  Their confidence as a leader needs to be balanced with their appreciation of their role ‘in service’ of the business.   It requires a finely tuned ego that can switch between leadership and followership as the situation requires.   

In our next instalment we will look at role clarity.  If you have experiences you wish to share, please comment here or contact us at [email protected]

How to Achieve Sustainable Change

To bring about radical improvements in how teams operate, it is important to focus equally on what they are doing and how they are doing it.  Focusing purely on behaviour, without linking it to business process and performance leads to poorly focused development.  Focusing on processes and systems without considering behaviours leads to unsustainable or poorly realized improvements.    It requires a number of things to occur:

Engaging Leadership

Coaching and engagement is essential to sustainable change.  Coaching allows for a frank and timely exchange of views about their leadership style and the interventions in a safe and confidential environment.  It is only by having the space and opportunity to do this, that leaders can learn how to set the right tone and follow that through in their own behaviour, to maximize impact with their team.

Developing a team identity and goal

Bringing the team together to explore how they work together and how that can be improved is a powerful exercise in galvanizing efforts and overcoming resistance.  A key output is a ‘team charter’ that articulates the goals (performance results), in-year milestones, dependencies and how individual roles will contribute to the achievement of those goals. 

Defining Individual Roles

After defining the team charter, individuals then develop their own team role.  It is defined in terms of contribution to team results, but also behaviours and team expectations of each other. 

Defining Processes & creating service standards

Part of the challenge for teams is how to get a shared picture of the end-to-end process, the hand-offs and where performance might be compromised.  By involving all team members in the process mapping and identification they buy-in to the improvements that are identified.

Creating a performance management framework

One of the big reinforcing tools to embed and then maintain new behaviours is a visual performance management framework. The team need to be engaged; not only in the data gathering, but also in understanding and responding to the data as it is reported.  Performance dashboards can lead to lively team discussions, because everyone understands what is required and their role in achieving it. 

Maintaining momentum

It is important, once the changes have been made, to maintain them.  Leaders play an important role here in ensuring that weekly and monthly team meetings are given the priority that they deserve and that data is regularly reviewed.  Praising good performance is just as important as highlighting and questioning poor performance. 

Who we are

Agents2Change has an unblemished track record in delivering significant improvements in key business results: profit; production; reliability; safety; to large scale process industries.    Our team of highly experienced consultants have the knowledge and skills to help you tackle the most daunting of behavioural change agendas informatively and effectively.  For more information, comment here, or email us at:  [email protected]