Coaching, Executive Training --- JJM Enterprises John McCabe

Background
After covering elements of the following discussion with client organization as well as with a prospective client over the past two weeks, I thought that adding this discussion would be timely.

I’ll start by saying that the top-ranking person in the Company, Division, location, Department or work crew is the chief change-agent (in most cases, the stealth change-agent) for the area of their accountability. Now let’s break that down a bit.

Frequently, people who are looked upon as change agents are called by many different titles. Among the titles are, Consultants, Staff Assistants, Quality Managers, Safety Managers, even, Human Resource Directors and Chief Financial Officers.

Often, it is not acknowledged or recognized: these are only surrogates- imposters. The illustration below is of the relationship among Boss, Subordinate (person or organization), and the nominal Change-Agent.

The Ineffective Model

The most common means by which the Boss moves to effect change in Subordinate, is for Boss to direct Change Agent to create the desired change in Subordinate. Change Agent makes contact with Subordinate with the framework for the change. That framework is often a program, for example, Quality Improvement. It could come as Diversity, or a streamlined order entry process.

Now we find that this, most common approach to change management (delegation of the task to a change agent surrogate), does not work with any degree of predictability (other than that it will take much longer, if it does work, than the preferred approach).

There is insufficient impetus (Why change?) in this arrangement. Subordinate can slow-walk, talk- the-talk (with little or no walk-the-walk), blame the agent, rope-a-dope, or any other or combination of myriad tactics and strategies. These efforts are part of an almost universally acknowledged human trait, resistance to change.

There is very little at risk for subordinate in this resistance. In many organizations, there is a long history of successful resistance to change. We know it from our school days. Isn’t this the substitute teacher syndrome?

Subordinate puts off the change agent because it can. Subordinate is in control of its own priorities. The program that is being (dare I say?) pushed on Subordinate by Change Agent is Change Agent’s responsibility and Change Agent's first priority. The program may be fitted to the established priorities of Subordinate. It is, however, unlikely to find its way to the top of any priority list. Boss has not placed it there. “This, too, shall pass,” is the motto within many organizations. “Flavor of the month,” “Just keep your head down.” All are phrases heard in response to Change Agent’s conversations, supplications, exhortations, threats, et.al.

Subordinate is usually not faced with any consequences for lack of performance against the requirements of the program. Soon the annoyance of continued badgering (as seen by Subordinate) of Change Agent becomes the subject of complaints. Promises made to Change Agent by Subordinate are not kept.

If Boss notices anything, it is that Change Agent is incompetent or ineffective. The process is the fundamental flaw, but this goes largely unnoticed. The impression created about Change Agent is that his value, is questionable, at best and a major disruption, at worst. The shifting support creates a syndrome; diminished credibility lowers effectiveness, reinforcing the decrease in credibility, leading toward lower effectiveness, etc.

There are many books and articles that celebrate (cynically) the failure of change initiatives (don’t bother to read them).

If there are no lessons to be learned by reading the articles and books, how does one get to a point where important change can be wrought within an organization? The ultimate answer is leadership. Leadership is more often the answer to organizational issues than is communication, as such.

Leadership has many different elements within it. Within this narrow instance, leading change, Boss has some of the following duties to its organization.

While Change Agent is one who is seen as a central player in change initiation and implementation, there is a role for such an individual or group prior to initiating the change. At the Pre-change stage, often Agent is the leader; just as often, it is someone or a group within the organization.

Change may be recommended by people who are not in the leadership role, but who have a particular insight about a better way, or see an impending seismic shift in the field of play. They describe the issue to the leader, who may then, come to share their view of a need for change. Change Agent can teach or educate boss as to the pitfalls of a change initiative. Change Agent may also test the resolve of Boss to see the change through to success.

It is said that humankind resists change even when the change is a good change. Boss (Leader) must anticipate this and attend to three strategies to move Subordinate toward the new tomorrow.

First, Boss must develop the rationale for change. As important, Boss must also, (second) manage the pain inherent in business as usual. The vision of the future is the third required component.

What is it that Boss sees ahead that calls for a change in how business (or some specific element of the enterprise) is conducted? Has there been a new law enacted? Has an oversight organization identified some missing process or procedure? Does Boss see a trend developing in the industry? Are there identifiable or predictable opportunities available to the organization? What makes change be an essential element in the near term for the organization?

As important but, sadly, often overlooked, is the need to manage the pain within the current reality. People living in a given set of circumstances will often not be aware of the comparatively undesirable situation that is their reality. Manage the pain does not imply, create and inflict pain. It does mean identify and presence the existing pain. “How long is your commute each morning?” “What time must you wake in order to get to work on time?” “Does that frustrate you?” “How many hours a week do you spend on the road commuting?” “Taxes have increased as a percent of earnings by 22% in the past 10 years; what have you given up in order to pay taxes?”

By anticipating the value that will accrue to the organization for having made the change, a picture/ vision of what is to be gained by change can be developed and fleshed out in some detail. A more secure future, viability itself, greater share of market, higher profitability, world peace, a cure for a dreaded disease, are all desirable states of being. With increased detail of the future condition will come a higher probability of capturing the attention as well as the passion of Subordinate (the “hearts and minds).

In the model depicted below, you will notice that it is similar to the Ineffective model seen earlier.

In the operation of the Effective model, Boss addresses Subordinate to describe the requirement to change. Boss also outlines, in some detail, other requirements about the target state. What will the organization look like? What will a particular process do and what outcomes will occur?

Boss also advises Subordinate that resources and assistance will be available from Change Agent. The provision of resources and assistance will in no way relieve Subordinate of the accountability for results. Boss does not intend that Subordinate will deliver the change with no further connection to or support from Boss. That issue covered below. Subordinate is to request the support form Change Agent.

Boss also directs Change Agent to be reasonably available to Subordinate in the development and implementation of the Change Project. Change Agent is made aware of the significance of the Change Project.

Boss tells both parties that they are to work out misunderstandings and resolve all issues to the extent that it is possible to do so. In the rare event that such resolution is not possible, Boss will reluctantly resolve it. In the end, Subordinate must complete the Project at the agreed time.

Boss agrees to hold Change Agent accountable for timely, appropriate and useful, results-oriented support.

Boss schedules the first progress-reporting meeting with the two parties and sets the interval between the progress reporting meetings. The purpose of the meetings is to report progress, seek further support and resources and to resolve issues that may threaten the productive and supportive relationship between Subordinate and Change Agent. Boss will extend the interval between progress meetings as progress and evidence of mutual support permits.

Boss recognizes that the one of the most significant hazards that is present in the drive to Change is that Boss’ credibility is on the line. A shift away from support for the project provides a lesson for the entire organization that they do not have to believe what Boss says.

Gentle Reader: What was useful for you? What other perspective would you offer? Will you share that with me? I will post groups of some excerpted or edited comments with attribution.