Posted on June 1st, 2020 by Charles Mention
Economic and public health recovery from the Coronavirus pandemic are closely related, as is true with any regional, national, or global catastrophe. What makes pandemic recovery so different from most other disasters is that its impact cycle is significantly more sustained and progressive. The U.S. economic recovery strategy for COVID-19 has been short-term financial relief — a typical disaster response — along with physical distancing, cleaning, personal hygiene, testing, contact tracing, and personal protective equipment (PPE). These response actions are necessary and appropriate and must be done urgently. But to facilitate sustained workplace recovery, additional and equally urgent occupational-factor-dependent steps must be taken.
In some industries, food service for example, it may be more difficult to devise strategies that go beyond public health guidelines. But, regardless of industry, there are functions where adding a proactive response strategy would improve sustainability. These functions include administrative, clerical, manufacturing/production, commercial repair & overhaul, engineering, research & development, scientific, and similar occupational environments. In these settings, workers congregate but there is low incidence of irregular, uncontrolled, or random interaction with unknown people external to the business.
Here are six steps to developing a comprehensive approach to successful and sustained business restart in settings like these:
1. Outline the business occupations or functions using Organizational Modeling
To avoid the mistake of generalizing response by industry, each workplace should take a functional/occupational viewpoint when determining the proper approach for them. In some businesses, parts of the organization are well served with the public-health-only approach, while other business units, functions, or sites may not be. Since outbreak of transmission cannot easily be confined within the business landscape all areas are exposed to risk if this happens.
Guidelines will differ between production and office areas, for example. Further, production impact is not universal: video or digital production shops are much different from stamping or plating. Similarly, a real estate or insurance office would not be identical to a call center. Service occupations, whether healthcare, hospitality, or consumer products repair would all require specific considerations.
The analysis to develop the model should be kept simple and done quickly. The objective is to identify occupational/functional labels/categories for people and spaces in the business.
2. Determine potential transmission rates across the business using Affinity Analysis
Before an effective strategy can be framed, the most likely locations/spaces, occupations/roles/functions, and individuals subject to spreading the virus must be identified. The basis for the rating should be “contact density’ — a function of the number of people in each space over time. The main difference between the reactive approach, where contract tracing is done after symptoms or positive tests appear, and the proactive approach is that in the latter, projected contacts are mapped ahead of time rather than tracked after the fact. This is how contact density leads to discovery of high transmission spaces, roles, and people. For example, a supply cage in a manufacturing area can likely be classified as low transmission because access is easily monitored and controlled and can be mitigated by separation, PPE, and sanitation practices. On the other hand, a continuous flow processing line may be significantly harder to mitigate and so would have a much higher expected transmission rate.
Affinity mapping must also include contact density outside the business. Effort must be taken to estimate the impact of “off-premise” exposure. For example, do people drive to work alone? Carpool? Take public transportation? Walk? Bike? Each of these would predict separate exposure affinities.
The result of the Transmission Affinity Analysis is a series of heat maps that show relative transmission risk along multiple dimensions.
3. Devise mitigation and remediation plans using Risk Analysis
Quantifiable transmission rates broken down by groups, space, and people, can now be translated into relative prioritized risk. This will support the development and execution of protocols to address each (Step 4). The risk analysis should consider the frequency, severity, likelihood, and detectability of each risk factor relative to each affinity group. Once the relative risk priorities are established, mitigations and remediations can be developed and evaluated based on their impact (how much their execution would lower the relative prioritized risk). This sounds complex, but is a standard, universally practiced, and simple approach. Finally, the risks are re-prioritized based on mitigation impact so that execution planning can be done, first for mitigations (identifiable actions to prevent transmission), then for remediations (identifiable actions to contain or minimize transmission after it occurs). This step is vital to budgeting and funding acquisition as each mitigation or remediation carries forecastable cost.
4. Establish Affinity- and Risk-based Protocols across the business
Now that transmission risk has been quantifiably prioritized along with the financial impact of the risks and prevention and response actions against them, attention can finally be paid to making sure that appropriate protocols are in place to address each space, group, and individual in the business. This is critical to establishment of a sustainable action plan. If testing protocols, for example, were identical for every worker in the business, there are only three logical alternatives:
a. Adopt a maximal level for everyone
While this alternative is noble, funding or availability will likely run out rather quickly unless the business has very deep pockets and the supply chain can meet unlimited demand.
b. Adopt a minimal level for everyone
Less noble than the first and, worse, unlikely to lower transmission risk and very likely to threaten cash flow and cause loss of business and public reputation.
c. Take a moderate stance
While “everything in moderation” often sounds good, in practice this is probably the worst alternative. First, the financial resources of the business are largely wasted because the protocols will hardly be effective. Second, because the protocols will hardly be effective, no progress is being made at lowering transmission rates. So now, cash flow is being exposed from top-to-bottom and the hit to public reputation is still felt.
Specific, affinity- and risk-based protocols must be established across the business to protect revenue and contain cost, contracts, reputation, etc. Protocols should be established for telework, “on-premise” work schedules (frequencies, staggered arrivals and exits, incoming and outgoing delivery…), physical distancing, sanitation practices, PPE, health monitoring, surveillance testing, and contact tracing. Customizing these protocols across constituencies optimizes the use and effectiveness of financial resources resulting in the highest sustainable level of workplace health, customer accounts, and reputation in the community for the business.
Skipping this step is like playing in the casino where the house always wins … in this case, the house is Coronavirus.
5. Use professional Change Management Experts
At least some of these protocols will be new and changes to policies, processes, and/or procedures will certainly require effective communications (internal and external) and training. Professional change management expertise should be used. The cost of change should be included in funding estimates to protect the business from being forced to abandon an otherwise workable plan because the money ran out. The smaller the business, the more important this step.
6. Develop and rely heavily on Performance Monitoring
Here the value of proactive management is seen. Since predictable transmission rates and contact densities were established, they can be compared to actuals. Monitoring allows for assumptions to be validated and adjusted. The validation cycles the business through the first five steps continuously, each time improving resource utilization, and proactively responding to “on- and off-premise” changes.
Deploying these six proactive steps properly allows business to not only “reopen,” but stay open.
Posted on June 15th, 2016 by Charles Mention
In his 2007 book Change or Die, Alan Deutchman wrote “the reason change (is so difficult) in America’s major corporations isn’t that the people who run them don’t want to change or can’t change, but rather they don’t understand the basic concepts and keys to change or have the right tools to effect it.” Yet, to highlight the potential for every organization to realize success when attempting change, Deutchman concluded “if (large multinational companies) with decades of entrenched culture and hundreds of thousands of employees around the world, can pull off a major change, then there’s hope for any company, organization or institution of lesser size and scope.”
Despite Deutchman’s optimism for the capacity for change, the vast majority of companies don’t find success easily. And given the statement made by the title of his book, this is not at all good news. Simply put, change is to corporations, organizations and institutions as the heartbeat is to nature. By observing a few very simple features of a heartbeat, we learn a lot about Organizational Change Management (OCM) as well as some of the difficulties that make it elusive for so many organizations.
The first observation is that there is a predictable rhythm to a healthy heartbeat. The heart beats consistently, resting between beats. While this rest is essential, if it persists, death follows quickly. Likewise, the organization must rest between periods of change (beats). By remaining at rest too long, though, it loses its ability to compete, adapt and grow; death eventually occurs. It changes or it dies!
In nature, heart rate normally varies based on easily identifiable characteristics. For example, larger animals tend to have slower heart rates, as do those at rest and under no stress or threat.
OCM Principle 1: The rate of effective organizational change is determined by size, activity level, and threats and/or pressures from outside conditions and/or events.
Larger organizations should plan for slower frequency of change. Their rate is limited by higher levels of activity and energy required for keeping things functioning properly, leaving less capacity for change. Additionally, outside pressure (from regulation, etc) and national, regional or local events (natural or man-made disasters, short term macroeconomic trends, etc) tend to slow the rate of planned, strategic change. Interestingly, a final outside factor, external threat (from hostile takeover attempts, disruptive competitive advancement or highly sophisticated market entrants, etc) tend to demand increased rate of change; the company that does not respond quickly or change significantly enough may find survival unlikely if not impossible.
Sustained excited pace of change, however, can itself cause death. When the heart beats without rest (fibrillation) it never fills with blood since filling takes place during the rest stage between beats. Though the heart beats much faster than normal, no blood is pumped to the body; soon the brain and lungs are starved, causing death. The remedy is to shock the heart with electricity (defibrillation), forcing it to resume normal rhythm and circulation of blood.
In a company, fibrillation results from repeated, uncoordinated change many times lacking clear strategic intent or governance. Without adequate rest, each successive cycle becomes less effective and soon no improvement is flowing, despite extreme energy committed and focused toward change. “Organizational Defibrillation,” the jolt that provides a severe enough shock to resume normal rhythm, often requires turnover in leadership, philosophically if not literally.
OCM Principle 2: When the pace of organizational change loses effectiveness, starving the organization, the only viable solution for survival is leadership turnover.
Finally, in a healthy heartbeat, each cycle is identical in shape; each can be perfectly overlaid on any other as if created from a single mold. In fact, unhealthy activity is often indicated by variations in the shape of beats.
OCM Principle 3: There is a repeatable process (pattern) for implementing successful change that, once mastered, results in “muscle memory,” facilitating successive change more naturally, easily and quickly.
This repeatability is due, in part, to the heart’s makeup of specialized cells that beat in precise sequence with total independence from outside stimulation. Each individual cell is programmed to repeat its exact and unique activity until something causes it to stop.
OCM Principle 4: Effective change is promoted through a culture where individuals understand and relentlessly and collaboratively carry out roles and assignments in support of an overall mission toward improvement.
Size defines optimal tempo. Effective leadership establishes manageable pace. Reliable process fuels consistency. Aligned culture drives focus and persistence. Understanding these simple principles, The Heartbeat of Change(SM), is like aerobic exercise, arming companies, organizations and institutions with the concepts, keys and tools needed to improve OCM success rates and ultimately sustain vigorous, vibrant life.
#ChangesRUs
NOTE: This first appeared as a guest contribution in the Upstate Business Journal on November 7, 2013.
Posted on June 6th, 2016 by Charles Mention
The “blankie” is the plague … no … the absolute albatross, of American corporate performance! That’s right … your eyes don’t deceive you … the “BLANKIE” is killing corporate performance, profitability, and prospective.
The “blankie” calms young children, making them feel comfortable when nothing else can pacify, often providing the only hope a parent has to keep them quiet or get them to sleep. In fact, Mom and Dad probably have several copies all over the house, cars, etc, just in case of unforeseen flare up.
Typically, at some point (hopefully long before the kid starts shaving or wearing makeup), one of the parents just can’t take it anymore … “I’ve had enough! GIVE ME THAT BLANKIE!”
Well, the time has come for some corporate parenting.
The corporate “blankie?” … bloated performance management: hyperactive metrics, measurement, analytics, …
To understand the issue, just take a stroll through the corridors of most companies, even many small ones. You’ll likely find the walls plastered with charts, metrics, etc., many contradicting and few the typical employee can tie directly to stated organization imperatives. While some contradiction can be traced to legitimate value chain forces, many differences can only be traced to “blankies.”
I had the privilege of working for Dean Roberts once. Dean is now Senior Partner at Executive Partners International. Dean used to point out that there were so many metrics in some companies that it seemed they employed a VP for each just to track and control it. He called it “A VP for every metric.” That was over ten years ago, but this thought couldn’t be more true today.
It is at the VP-level in most organizations that the bloat of performance management systems takes place. Almost by definition, each new executive is motivated to distinguish themselves. This differentiation has to be readily seen in performance reports for their contributions to be recognized. Unfortunately, true contribution is often so poorly measured that they are forced to highlight (often create) activities that can be more readily reported on, even if they have no ultimate positive causal impact on organizational performance.
When irrelevant metrics and performance measures proliferate, the beacon for the organization becomes defective. Unconnected metrics dull the impact of deficient performance on critical ones. Once dashboards, etc., are built that incorporate the extraneous, it becomes more and more difficult to chart the actual course being taken. The typical and unfortunate response to this is often antithetical … another metric … a “blankie.”
These inapt metrics rob performance and productivity, choke profitability, and because the plumb line is corrupt, starve prospective. Reversing this effect is straightforward but far from easy. Here are five proven steps:
- Use Metrics Exclusively and Uniformly. Make sure every organization member’s performance is assessed only on critical activities or outcomes that support enterprise imperatives, then retire unconnected metrics … period.
- Identify Metric Interactions and Causal Relationships. Map cause-and -effect associations for all metrics. (Many have failed because they started here without first completing Step 1.) Classify each as leading or lagging and track their relative proportion at all levels of the organization. The leading:lagging ratio should shift as you move up the organization from about 3:1 at entry level to 1:5 or so at the top. Champions, visionaries, and C-Suite Executives can employ a third classification: launching, tied to shifting imperatives, corporate challenges, etc. Once incorporated into the operating system, these should be reclassified as leading or lagging.
- Keep Metrics Fresh and Relevant. Align the entire corporate life-cycle (acquisition — of talent, product/service, partner, … — to decommission) to tangible metrics, reflecting changes (without fail) in strategy, vision, and imperative (update forecasts, career ladders, compensation plans, etc.).
- Ban Usage of Rogue Metrics, Charts, Reports, Etc. If desired, allow personal, unofficial use, but forbid, under any circumstance, their usage in general performance reviews or other standard business meetings or on walls or public monitors … period.
- Automate Standard Metrics to the greatest degree, exclusively if, possible.
This takes guts and certainly won’t be accomplished overnight. A company with enough determination can do this alone, but sustainable success is most likely with an experienced, objective, highly-skilled external partner.
#ChangesRUs
Posted on April 18th, 2016 by Charles Mention
NOTE: This is Part 4 of a planned 6-Part series. Link to Part 3.
Why do most change efforts of any substance within organizations fail? Why is failure so pervasive that most people are confident that they need only wait out the flurry of frenzied activity, often for no longer than the run-up to the next period financial report when everyone will be told to “drop everything else and make sure we get this nailed?”
Answer: Most “change agents” are completely and ignorantly unfamiliar with the “agents of change.” Everyone in a change environment is an agent of change. They are either working to promote change or they are working to obstruct it, consciously or not. The role of the change agent is to identify these agents of change, discover their intelligence, and leverage it to promote change. This is much like the work of a secret agent or government operative. Much like the superspy, the best change agent extracts and employs intel while blending into the landscape, escaping attention and suspicion.
So, who are these agents of change? We’ll find that out over the first five posts in this six-post series. In the final post, we’ll wrap it all together to offer some execution guidance. Last time, we discovered Agent 3 (click here for details). Let’s get right to discussion of the next agent, Agent 4 (A4) — The Change Minimizer.
A4 is like Agent 1 in that they are opposed to change. The difference is that A4 is stealthier about their opposition than is A1. Don’t mistake this to mean that their opposition is less passionate. A4 has a broad continuum of reaction to change, spanning from strong antagonism like A1 all the way to a feeling that, while change may be necessary, it must be limited to the smallest possible impact. A4 mantras would include, “If it ain’t broke, …” and “better the devil you know, …”
A4 is known across the organization as an influencer; a mover and shaker that has the ear and loyalty of power brokers. They are confident and authoritative. Many in the organization won’t take a public stand until they know where A4 is on a proposed change. As a result, A4 tends to get things done by having the right people aligned to them. Despite this organizational power, A4 doesn’t necessarily possess deep expertise. Their power has been gained from a very keen political prowess. They rarely have to spend actual organizational collateral because, due to the company they keep, they aren’t normally held accountable for being wrong. Significant change is a threat to this seat of security and stability A4 enjoys.
A4 can be detected because though they seldom come out in support of change, they rarely object passionately; they rarely offer tons of data to support opposition; they simply “know” that this is the wrong time or the wrong place or the wrong person … They commit to “making it work” if the organization is bent on going, but they are very specific in their reservation, highlighting realistic threats to success of the undertaking. They appear to be level-headed and sober and, though they have been wrong in the past — even often, and since they have others in the boat with them, they are lauded for having been the force behind avoiding big mistakes that otherwise would have shipwrecked the effort along the way.
The biggest mistake made by change agents when dealing with A4 is two-fold. First, and most prevalent, is over-reaction to their objections followed by an all-out campaign to discredit them. Because of their political allegiances, this often ends badly for the change agent. The other mistake is to ignore A4 altogether. Doing this will expose A3 to danger and nullify the message from A2. Since the change agent doesn’t know where all the political alliances are or how deep, A4 is the most dangerous operative to deal with.
So, how does a change agent leverage A4?
First, validate the risks outlined by A4 using the intel gained from A1. If what A4 says is real, A1 is going to latch on to it and take it to hyper-drive. There is normally little danger of A1 and A4 conspiring, since A1 doesn’t like the political power that A4 enjoys and A4 thinks that the passion A1 exudes makes them incredible. Once validated, enlist A3 to analyze the risk and plan contingencies, then include this info in appropriate bits in “spokesagent” messaging to change champion(s). Give the champion(s) enough detail in enough simplicity for them to be able to construct messaging (with the change agent’s help if requested or welcomed) that they will personally deliver to the enterprise: “We are aware that X might happen as we go through Y. Because of that we are planning Z which we are confident will protect us from N.” Finally, credit A4 for bringing this to light. This tends to disarm them on that particular risk. It also has the additional implication of raising the ire of A1 who feels actually responsible for bringing it up, so pay close attention to gain intel on the failure effects that A3 may have missed or understated.
Handled properly, there is no downside for A4, so there is no consideration needed for how to manage them post-change. They normally move on to the next change and play their role seamlessly over and over again.
Next time, Agent 5.
Posted on April 1st, 2016 by Charles Mention
NOTE: This is Part 3 of a planned 6-Part series. Link to Part 2.
Why do most change efforts of any substance within organizations fail? Why is failure so pervasive that most people are confident that they need only wait out the flurry of frenzied activity, often for no longer than the run-up to the next period financial report when everyone will be told to “drop everything else and make sure we get this nailed?”
Answer: Most “change agents” are completely and ignorantly unfamiliar with the “agents of change.” Everyone in a change environment is an agent of change. They are either working to promote change or they are working to obstruct it, consciously or not. The role of the change agent is to identify these agents of change, discover their intelligence, and leverage it to promote change. This is much like the work of a secret agent or government operative. Much like the superspy, the best change agent extracts and employs intel while blending into the landscape, escaping attention and suspicion.
So, who are these agents of change? We’ll find that out over the first five posts in this six-post series. In the final post, we’ll wrap it all together to offer some execution guidance. Last time, we discovered Agent 2 (click here for details). Let’s get right to discussion of the next agent, Agent 3 (A3) — The Change Optimizer.
Like Agent 2, A3 wants to promote change. However, A3 is focused on ensuring positive outcome of change. A3 wants better, not simply different. A3 takes the A2 “how this can work” and “what this will do” statements and filters them through goals and objectives at their highest level of organizational influence. A3 is motivated by meaningful, noticeable organizational improvement from a rationale that effective change is the only sustainable strategy to secure it.
A3 is known across the organization as a key player that gets things done, often in spite of long odds. They exude positive energy and tend to work well with others, brokering matrix deals to secure resources and commitments beyond their organizational power. This deal-making often plays out against the backdrop of deep content expertise, career tenure, and cross-functional capability. A3 is often not motivated by corporate politics despite their interpersonal dexterity. In fact, A3 is often the face of challenges to sacred cows, fiefdoms, and turf boundaries. They can be easily detected by reasoned, level-headed promotion of change almost always supported by facts and data that present pros and cons sufficiently. Best of all, they help the organization, more than anyone else, decide what change to pursue. A3 does this not by poo-pooing change initiatives, but by giving stakeholders a realistic expectation, thereby enabling them to stop low impact or non-essential efforts early. A3 is an able analyst but does not get paralyzed by the process.
The biggest mistake made by Change Agents when dealing with A3? Over-reaction to complaints from the enterprise against A3. A3 naturally makes stakeholders uncomfortable in early stages of change. While stakeholders can tune out the drama and emotion of both A1 and A2, A3 offers a position that must be dealt with. The facts and data provided are often threatening to status quo, making stakeholders entrench until more clarity of the future state can address their “What’s in it for me?” concerns. A3 needs unwavering backing and support from Change Agents. Take care when exposing them too early to executive stakeholders who wield subjective interests and power. The Change Agent will often be directly accountable to one or more of these constituents and must be aware of managing expectations in a manner that doesn’t question allegiances.
So, how does a change agent leverage A3?
As early in the analyze stage of change as possible, begin to use the facts and data developed by A2 as expectation boundaries for the messages being delivered by the “spokesagent” (A2). It is extremely important, due to the political discomfort often associated with A3, that care be taken to prevent them from being linked to the formal seat of change at this stage. Make sure to give them all of the resources needed for sound, on-going analysis, including access to necessary people and data. Make sure that all A1 intel is immediately passed to A3. However, do everything possible to prevent A3 from probing for information or data directly from A1. In some situations, this is impossible to avoid so have contingency communication plans in place to cover this eventuality.
As the change lifecycle progresses, use A3 increasingly in interactions with executive stakeholders. As change advances, facts and data become greater sources of comfort because involved parties are more keenly interested in managing outcomes and impacts. This can expedite a natural transition of the “spokesagent” role form A2 to A3. A3 should remain engaged in analysis and communication throughout the remainder of the engagement.
Next time, Agent 4.
Posted on March 24th, 2016 by Charles Mention
NOTE: This is Part 2 of a planned 6-Part series. Link to Part 1.
Why do most change efforts of any substance within organizations fail? Why is failure so pervasive that most people are confident that they need only wait out the flurry of frenzied activity, often for no longer than the run-up to the next period financial report when everyone will be told to “drop everything else and make sure we get this nailed?”
Answer: Most “change agents” are completely and ignorantly unfamiliar with the “agents of change.” Everyone in a change environment is an agent of change. They are either working to promote change or they are working to obstruct it, consciously or not. The role of the change agent is to identify these agents of change, discover their intelligence, and leverage it to promote change. This is much like the work of a secret agent or government operative. Much like the superspy, the best change agent extracts and employs intel while blending into the landscape, escaping attention and suspicion.
So, who are these agents of change? We’ll find that out over the first five posts in this six-post series. In the final post, we’ll wrap it all together to offer some execution guidance. Last time, we discovered Agent 1 (click here for details). Let’s get right to discussion of the next agent, Agent 2 (A2) — The Pro-Change or Hyper-Change Agent.
Unlike Agent 1, A2 loves change and will seek it at any cost. A2 is an early adopter and is often the first to own whatever the latest whatever is, whether technology, fashion, books, recreation activities, … A2 finds the silver lining in almost any strategy and is virtually self-convincing, often discovering and expressing benefits that have escaped the notice even of the strongest change disciple. A2 is motivated by the mental gymnastics of figuring out “how this can work” and “what this will do for us.”
That primary motivation may play out against the backdrop of some foundational drivers for A2: hyper-ambition for career advancement, deeply personal factors like family or cultural legacy for high achievement (or establishment of it), or a deep-set desire to be a key factor in promoting success for particular stakeholders. Whatever the case, A2 can be easily detected by their consistent and passionate promotion of change often without (or with scant and qualitative) facts and data to support their excitement. A2 obeys gut feel, a deep-rooted paradigm that even partial achievement of a gargantuan idea is profitable, and an unusually high tolerance for risk based on a belief (an often overconfident and not terribly realistic one) that smart people can develop improvisations around problems on the fly. A2 is the MacGyver-wannabe of the world of change.
The biggest mistake made by Change Agents when dealing with A2? Putting them in charge of major change efforts and/or not setting boundaries for their communication and interaction with stakeholders. A2 has a natural skill-set that can be key to successful change. They are often energetic, charismatic, energizers. They often have very good interpersonal, collaboration, and teaming skills. HOWEVER … They often have limited attention spans and are not typically detail oriented. So, how does a change agent leverage A2?
As early in the intervention as possible, preferably during the define stage of change, prep them to for a role as internal spokesperson or commentator of change; a “spokesagent.” Make sure to give them a script, but leave some limited wriggle room. Stay connected to maintain a strong feeling for what their improvisations will be. They will normally be based on some of the benefits they bring out that hadn’t been on the table before. They feel ownership for these and will want to get them out, with or without attribution. Make sure that any of their lateral thinking that is off-limits is clearly defined and outlined as such and have zero tolerance for limit violations. Restriction of their anchor role is an effective deterrent to boundary jumping.
In addition, if they have a formal leadership role in the organization, give them coaching responsibilities for core teams or sub-teams. Position them to provide positive energy to these teams to help get them through tough times that are inevitable in any worthy change effort. They will naturally remind the teams of what the objective(s) is(are) and be much more consistent about that then even the change agent will. They also are very contextual, so they tend to mold their message situationally which makes them effective cheerleaders when specific challenges arise.
Guard against employing A2 as a primary messenger to senior management. Their lack of attention to detail may be a liability in that environment if they are unable to address what an executive might consider basic negative probabilities. Also, be very careful to avoid engaging A2 beyond the point where they begin to lose interest in the change. They may be great participants in vision-setting, but tend to get bored when a lot of blocking and tackling begins to take place. Be careful to keep them far enough away from the front lines for their perspective to remain roused.
Once you get heavily into design and implementation phases, there are more passionate and energetic “spokesagents” than A2. A2 is like a surfer, always looking form the next wave, and always hoping that it will be bigger, more thrilling and dangerous than the last. Be careful to use organization structure, geography, etc limit the frequency and amplitude of waves A2 is exposed to.
Next time, Agent 3.
Posted on March 9th, 2016 by Charles Mention
Why do most change efforts of any substance within organizations fail? Why is failure so pervasive that most people are confident that they need only wait out the flurry of frenzied activity, often for no longer than the run-up to the next period financial report when everyone will be told to “drop everything else and make sure we get this nailed?”
Answer: Most “change agents” are completely and ignorantly unfamiliar with the “agents of change.” Everyone in a change environment is an agent of change. They are either working to promote change or they are working to obstruct it, consciously or not. The role of the change agent is to identify these agents of change, discover their intelligence, and leverage it to promote change. This is much like the work of a secret agent or government operative. Much like the superspy, the best change agent extracts and employs intel while blending into the landscape, escaping attention and suspicion.
So, who are these agents of change? We’ll find that out over the first five posts in this six-post series. In the final post, we’ll wrap it all together to offer some execution guidance. Let’s get right to it.
Agent 1 (A1) — The Anti-Change Agent. A1 wants to prevent change at all costs. A1 could be motivated by career stage, market, industry, or economic uncertainty, or deeply personal factors like family crisis, life stage or a deep-set desire to prevent current stakeholders from achieving success. Whatever the case, A1 can be easily detected by their consistent and zealous objection to change with or without substantial (and sometime voluminous) facts and data to support their opposition. The biggest mistake made by Change Agents when dealing with A1? Ignoring, suppressing, or even disciplining, reassigning or terminating them. While A1 can cause a lot of turbulence, they are often the key to successful change. Why? They often know what can and will go wrong as change takes place. Counterintelligence skill is needed to mine this intel. A straightforward, “Hey A1, how about telling me everything we need to watch out for,” isn’t going to get it done.
Here’s what does. Listen carefully and accept the data they volunteer as early in the intervention as possible, preferably during the define stage of change. Invite them to share their positions, opinions, etc in a formal forum that includes change stakeholders and executives, but not their peers. Give them focused access to ears they normally don’t have privy to. Use a primary Change Agent as a surrogate for the larger stakeholder group which can be present briefly at the start or end of intel sessions but shouldn’t hear the deep details of A1 positions unfiltered.
Why does this work? Many times A1 antagonism has built-up over years of being ignored and rebuffed. They have been passed over and seen people come in with much less experience, yet whose ideas get advanced even though they often fail. They have unsuccessfully tried repeatedly to raise red flags and warnings that could have avoided sometimes significant setbacks. They’re not always the most politically astute players, but often have the greatest technical acumen. (Technical in this case means understanding of the business and its processes and has nothing necessarily to do with technology.)
If listening to A1 does nothing else, it takes the wind out of the sails of resistance they may otherwise be fully prepared to cruise under. This satisfies your primary objective for A1: Make overt attempts to oppose change expose them as disingenuous, complicating any recruitment efforts they undertake.
As you gain intel from A1, pass it along to design teams for evaluation and incorporation into the change model where appropriate and feasible. In no case, though, make any promises or assertions to A1 that this will happen or is happening.
Later, during the test phases of change, you will get a chance to see A1’s greatest value firsthand: A1 is the ultimate crash tester. Put the model in front of them and defy them to break it. Of course your real motive is to make sure that they do break it if it can be broken. This is why you don’t let them in on the fact that you have been incorporating their intel. The last thing you need is for them to begin to feel invested in the success of the change or to guard their intel. You want them squarely determined to defeat it and defiantly prove that they know more about things than you do. What you learn during testing will be invaluable and save significant investment loss.
After the change is installed be sure to openly celebrate and credit A1 for the successes achieved. At that point make sure that they make an unambiguous choice either to embrace the change and take an active role in solidifying it or to exit. A1 doesn’t work well in environments where change they adamantly opposed goes forward despite their opposition.
Next time, Agent 2.
Posted on July 1st, 2015 by tfmadmin
Few would be unfamiliar with the age-old paradox, “Which came first…the chicken or the egg?” There can be positions taken (sometimes quite entrenched ones) on each side of this circular argument. The outcome, however, has little bearing on the current or future state of “chickendom.”
Conversely, in the business/corporate sphere a similar argument relative to whether Vision precedes Strategy or vice versa has an outcome with decided consequence (current and future) on #StrategicPlanning effectiveness and impact potential. Too many times in too many companies #StrategicPlanning supplants, supersedes, overshadows, or happens in the absence or in lieu of Vision. Among the causes for this are:
1. Lack of #VisionaryLeadership
Vision is not something that comes naturally to organizations. Organizations tend to settle into comfortable “nests” and feel their way with a determined objective to experience as little turbulence and distress as possible. They tend to resist or even reject changes and challenges to their comfort zones.
Only sound leadership can entice the organization to move away from the safety of familiar surroundings into the dangers and unknowns of “vision.” Vision is critical to organizational growth and survival. Therefore, so is sound leadership. #VisionaryLeaders are ones who are able to perceive where their organizations need to move to for survival and/or competitiveness and to convincingly and clearly communicate the imperative to move, the required direction of movement and the specific destination (to the degree necessary to promote movement).
Companies lacking #VisionaryLeadership constantly change directions, but with no concurrent consensus on where “there” is. (Children on a long trip often don’t know where “there” is, but are so determined to reach it that they demand a status update every 20 minutes.)
2. Errant Belief that Strategy Equals Vision
Unfortunately, many leaders believe that strategy and vision are synonymous. This couldn’t be further from true. Vision is the destination, the future state that an organization seeks. It articulates a specific set of organization attributes that must be achieved in a specific time frame (both of course with some margin for variance). Strategy is the path to that destination.
There can be multiple Strategies for a single Vision. In addition to #VisionaryLeaders then, transformative organizations also require sound #StrategicLeadership. #StrategicLeaders have the capability to choose and configure the optimal Strategy while driving cross-functional synergies, coordination and collaboration.
Treating Strategy as Vision wastes the energy of the journey while never arriving; like a perpetual labor, but never a birth. Companies lacking #StrategicLeadership eventually burn out, scorching those associated with them as well.
3. Lack of #TransformationalLeadership
Even where #VisionaryLeadership and #StrategicLeadership are sound, every organization faces challenges during transformation that require the presence of a separate leadership trait, #TransformationalLeadership. #TransformationalLeaders are those with capabilities to respond to challenges during the transformation journey, especially unforeseen ones. They fully understand the many:one relationship of Strategy:Vision and are less wed to a particular Strategy than are purely #StrategicLeaders, enabling them to identify and deploy alternatives quickly and efficiently with minimal compromise (if any) to Vision.
#TransformationalLeaders are also typically process-oriented, disciplined and culture-sensitive. The “culture” in this case is #CorporateCulture which enables, empowers and encourages people in organizations to accept and embrace vision; adopt standards, procedures, practices, and guidelines; and embody beliefs, values and mores. It is transformed as Vision unfolds. Without #CultureTransformation organizations continue to act and perform as they did prior to change, even while boasting of transformation.
Companies without #TransformationlLeadership behave inconsistently, deciding by convenience which set of practices and identities to display, confusing external partners and frustrating internal ones.
The paradox, then, is resolved: Vision must lead Strategy. There is no other way to avoid organizational wandering, flailing and volatility.
Posted on May 8th, 2014 by tfmadmin
The Microsoft short film Productivity Future Vision (2011) provides a glimpse into a world where every moment in every person’s life is ultimately productive. Schedules, communication, travel, business collaboration, even philanthropy are marvelously, seamlessly integrated, shrinking the world literally to the palm of each hand.
While not clearly obvious in the film, such productivity is advantageous only because it is inherently strategic. Unfortunately, this type of #StrategicProductivity is not normally prevalent in business. In fact, @NickTasler identifies productivity as one of the 3 Myths That Kill Strategic Planning (@HBR), saying, “the (real) problem is that productivity is strategically agnostic.” True, yet productivity is often used interchangeably with competitiveness or at the very least spoken of in the same breath by most corporate leaders.
This presents a challenge, though one #TransformationalLeadership overcomes easily with attention to a few basic principles:
1. Understand and Leverage the Pigeonhole Principle
TooManyPigeonsSimply stated, the Pigeonhole Principle says that if there are more items to handle than individual places to handle them, some of the locations will be required to accommodate multiple items. (Maybe this should be called the “Kitchen Drawer Principle” instead?) This principle explains why faulty (or no) corporate strategy often falls victim to productivity.
When any organization tries to accomplish more than it has capacity to execute, resources are increasingly forced over time into plural duty. This is why responding to competitiveness challenges through workforce reduction seldom works. In fact, an understanding of the Pigeonhole Principle makes it easy to recognize why this strategy frequently makes matters worse and may even lower competitiveness … often rapidly.
Yet productivity is important and critical to the success of any organization. The only hope for sustained competitiveness is to achieve #StrategicProductivity, even if not the panacea depicted in Productivity Future Vision. For this to happen effective, intentional and consistent productivity prioritization must occur.
2. Prioritize on Strategy not Tactics
Even for those organizations that realize the need to prioritize productivity, there is often a lack of understanding of the difference between strategic and tactical prioritization. Using production volume or demand as examples , a tactical approach would dictate that the highest volume or demand processes would be required to be most productive and receive most resource priority. A strategic approach, on the other hand, would look at the volumes or demand identified in the prevailing strategy and set priorities based on that strategic intent. If the difference between these approaches is not astounding for any company, that company has an irrelevant strategy and will in time itself become competitively irrelevant.
The tools required to identify, calculate, and communicate strategic priorities for productivity are straightforward, easy to use, and very reliable. The key action is to make sure that priorities are deployed throughout the enterprise and impact appropriate business systems and processes, including measurement, reward, and decision making.
3. Measure & Reward on Strategy and Tactics using a dynamic time approach
Unlike prioritization, measurement, reward, and decision systems need to be driven by strategic and tactical intent. Because of this, the strategic time horizon must be used to determine measurement and recognition/reward goals and drive decision metrics at a given point of strategic execution. Early in the plan, expected performance levels will be more weighted to tactics, moving to a predominantly strategic weighting as the strategy periods draws to a close. This transition must be driven regardless of tactical performance at any given time. Otherwise, there will be little or no difference between tactical and strategic measurement.
Strategic Productivity only happens where #TransformationalLeaders are present. The enablers of heightened communication, collaboration and strategic view seen in Productivity Future Vision, though challenging, are conceptually achievable. Once achieved, bolder and more ambitious #StrategicPlanning results and competitiveness explodes.