Anatomy of an Easy Change Initiative
July 8, 2010
Thinking of the larger change initiatives that I have been involved in over the years, I recently wondered: What was the easiest, and why? Without question, it was the implementation of a Materials Requirements Planning (MRP) system, used to track inventory, schedule production, purchase materials, and track costs at Solo Cup Company.
Our task was fairly straightforward. We needed to replace the existing mainframe system with a new server-based system. While the project was complicated in terms of setup and timing, it was not difficult by change management standards. For example, we encountered little resistance. When it came to rolling the boulder uphill, the slope was not very steep.
I attribute the relative ease of implementation to the following factors:
Clear sense of urgency
The reason for the replacement and upgrade of the system was the so-called Y2K bug. If we didn’t replace the old system, it would cease to function properly at the stroke of midnight at the dawn of the millennium. The system was essential to the operation of the company; it was clear to everyone that the change needed to happen.
Definite improvement
While the new system replaced the functionality of the old system, the features of the new system were miles ahead. The user interface was easier to use and learn. The database structure allowed reports with more and better information. Since we were starting from scratch with a new database, we were able to fix any lingering issues before loading the new system. No doubt, it would help people do their jobs more efficiently and effectively.
Plenty of resources
Although the ultimate deadline was December 31, 1999, the project was started in early 1997. We were given enough time to do things right and not rush. Also, we had a capable full-time project team of four, plus dedicated IT resources. No one ever complained about budget constraints. There is something to be said for having the capacity to do the job right!
Individual training
Since we had people and time, we were able to provide each user of the system with on-the-job, one-on-one training on the system. Each person learned how to perform his own job with the new system over the course of three weeks. The users had enough time to get comfortable with the new system, prove to themselves that it worked, and have any questions answered in person.
Minimized extra work
During the three-week implementation, the data needed to be entered into both the old system and the new system. This duplication was necessary to prove that the system was working properly before going live. Instead of burdening the users with twice the work, the trainer would enter the data into the old system for them. Not forcing them to add extra work during the implementation reduced any animosity for the change and allowed the users to focus on learning the new system.
Useful reporting structure
Although each of the users worked at a distant manufacturing plant, most reported to either the corporate logistics or purchasing departments, and their bosses were the same directors who were sponsoring the new software. The reporting structure was useful for making centralized decisions and standardizing processes. The lines of authority, and our ability to standardize across plants, were somewhat trickier in instances where the users reported to the individual plant managers instead.
No culture change required
As a straightforward software upgrade, there was not much of a culture change involved in the implementation. The organization with the old system was generally the same as the organization with the new system. While increased accessibility to information might have provided the opportunity to create a culture change, it was outside the scope of the project. A change in culture was not required to successfully implement the software.
Not all change initiatives are difficult, and resistance is not always a struggle to overcome. With the right combination of factors, change can seem downright easy.
3 Traps that Keep Change Agents from Getting the Support They Need
May 13, 2010
It is common knowledge that in order for your change initiative to grow beyond your own span of influence you need leadership buy-in. The truth is you need much more than approval; as a change agent you need leaders in your organization to take action that supports your initiative.
The trouble is, leaders often don’t do what is needed to implement change, even if they agree it should happen. You may think, If only they would (fill in the blank), you would be able to make some real progress.
This lack of proper leadership support is the top challenge for most change agents. It frequently stays that way because change agents get stuck by the following traps.
1. “It’s not my place.”
Allison was a supervisor who had been given a special assignment to implement the recommendations that resulted from an employee survey. The biggest roadblock to improvement, she decided, was her boss’s boss, the very person who had commissioned the survey. Allison’s boss agreed but would not do anything about it. “What can I do?” Allison asked, “It’s not my place to address the issues with my boss’s boss.”
The organizational hierarchy can seem like an insurmountable hurdle over which to affect change. When the person whose support you need is outside of one degree of authority, it can seem like political suicide to attempt to do something about it. From this position of helplessness, it is easy to get stuck hoping he will figure it out on his own.
2. “That’s just the way they are.”
Dan was a senior manager who worked directly for the CEO. Dan’s key initiative to improve the company was to develop and solidify accountability to procedures. The CEO, while supporting the initiative verbally, did not want to abide by procedures himself. It was the CEO who had embodied the previously lackadaisical culture. “I can’t do anything about it. That’s just the way he is,” Dan lamented.
We often assume that the behaviors of others reflect an inner character trait. This assumption is so common that psychologists call it the fundamental attribution error. When you consider that someone will not support you because it is part of his DNA, of course you would automatically chalk it up as a lost cause. You get trapped knowing it is impossible to change someone else.
3. “He just doesn’t like me.”
John was a project manager who needed key data from the manager of another department. However, John’s phone calls and e-mails requesting the information were repeatedly ignored. John asked his boss to request the same information, and it was immediately handed over. “Maybe she just doesn’t like me,” was John’s reasoning.
This trap is the mirror image of the fundamental attribution error. Instead of thinking the lack of support is caused by her character, you think the lack of support is your own fault. Whenever you interpret her behavior as a personal slight – she doesn’t respect you, she doesn’t like you, she doesn’t trust you – it traps you with self-doubt. Insecurity is a lousy place from which to exert influence as a change agent.
Allison, Dan and John are composites of real change agents who were stuck. But none of their traps were inherently real. The traps were assumptions they made about the leaders and the organization.
The first step in getting out of a trap is to recognize that you may be in one. Separate the facts from your assumptions about them. From there, you can select a new point of view and step out of the trap, so you can find new ways to get the support you need to implement change.
You can get the support you need to make a difference!
Join me for The Proper Care and Feeding of Leaders webinar series on May 20 & 27. I’ll be sharing practical ways to get unstuck from these common traps.
The Proper Care and Feeding of Leaders
So They Help You Implement Change
Dates: Thursday, May 20 & 27, 2010
Time: 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Eastern
Cost: $149 (The first 5 tickets are only $99!)
Maximum attendees: 20
Make Measures Work
May 6, 2010
It’s been said, “What gets measured gets done.” Taken at face value, the statement means that if you want something done, then simply measure it. Anyone who has tried to implement a balanced scorecard knows that just because you measure something doesn’t mean it’s automatically going to change. There are a number of caveats and prerequisites to the well-worn platitude. The following are a few ways to make measures work. Read more
Implementing Change from Inside? Watch Out for Blind Spots
March 24, 2010
Due to human nature, sometimes we make assumptions that are so ingrained in our minds that we don’t even realize we are making them. When it comes to implementing change, these blind spots can get in the way of taking proper action – or even realizing that action is a possibility. Read more
Monitor Your Organization’s “Non-Verbal” Communication
February 23, 2010
It is widely cited that verbal communication makes up only 7% of a total message during a conversation. That is, 93% percent of the meaning within the conversation comes from outside the words that we use. These non-verbal aspects of communication include gestures, posture, intonation, and facial expressions. It turns out the concrete language is by far the least important factor in our interpretation and understanding of what the other person saying.
A similar phenomenon happens in organizations. Consider that the equivalent to verbal communication in organizations are the formal words that come to employees in the form of official documents: values and mission statements, strategy, policies, newsletters, websites, announcements, press releases, and other communication devices. The rest of internal communication comes from everything else employees experience. Similar to a conversation, the vast majority of meaning and understanding is generated by “non-verbal” communication.
The following are examples of “non-verbal” communication in organizations that speak louder than words:
Accountability
Employees assess which policies count and which ones are merely guidelines based on how consistently they are enforced. Processes and procedures are generally followed to the extent that they are required.
“Everyone must contact the IT helpdesk to resolve computer issues”
(unless you know who to call to avoid waiting).
Rewards
Rewards in all their forms tell employees how to be successful. Traditional incentive programs signal expectations but may conflict with stated values or even inadvertently motivate a different behavior than what is desired. Furthermore, who gets promoted and what behaviors elicit praise send powerful messages about what is expected.
“Safety first!”
(Here’s your efficiency bonus.)
Decisions
How managers spend resources speaks volumes about what they truly value and prioritize. The decisions they make about how to allocate funds and how they spend their own time demonstrates what they believe will lead to success.
“Strategic initiatives are important”
(until we need to cut something out of the budget).
Management behavior
More than anything, employees look at the behavior modeled by management to see if it matches what is officially communicated. The most influential person in this regard is an employee’s own boss. The attitudes and behaviors displayed by people in authority tell the real story of what is expected.
“We value employees’ ideas”
(but not the terrible one you just shared).
Employees will rely on “non-verbal” communication to understand what is expected and to decide appropriate action in the midst of uncertainty. When introduced to news of change, many employees will take the stance, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” It is not enough for them to hear it or read it. It is imperative to monitor your organization’s “non-verbal” communication to ensure that actions and behaviors are consistent with your official change message.
Ten Essential Tools for Change Agents
February 2, 2010
Change agents are individuals within organizations who influence change without having direct authority over people who are going through the change. The following are ten things that effective change agents use to influence change in their organizations. Read more
Three Myths About Organizational Change
January 5, 2010
Our beliefs about what change is and how it works can influence our willingness to take on the challenge appropriately. Change agents who believe these three myths might find their initiatives stuck in a rut.
Myth #1: The goal is change.
Perhaps we are victims of language. Organizational change practitioners commonly talk as though the end goal is change itself. It is common to say “implement change” as if the change itself is the goal. It’s not! Change is the process of bringing about the desired future state. Read more
Five Rules for Facilitating Productive Leadership Teams
December 8, 2009
As a change agent, you might occasionally need to facilitate a leadership team to drive your change initiative forward. Like many meetings, leadership team meetings can be boring and ineffective. Leadership team meetings are especially challenging because the time when the entire team can meet in the same room is rare and easily squandered.
Follow these five rules to increase the productivity of your leadership team meetings, and thus make progress on your change initiative. Read more
Tips for Getting Your Project Approved
November 2, 2009
Unfortunately, not everyone in your organization has the same understanding or feels as strongly as you do that your project should be implemented – whether it is the entire change initiative, or an enabler such as training or software. While some projects might fly under the radar in the beginning, at some point someone with power has to say “Yes, let’s do this” for the project to continue.
The following tips are compiled from my many years as an industrial engineer, when one of my key responsibilities was to justify both capital and human capital projects to gain approval by the leadership team. Read more
Bounce Back After Change: Five Avenues for Mastering Resilience
September 25, 2009
By Liisa Hardaloupas, M.O.D. and Heather Stagl
For an inanimate object resilience is like elasticity: the ability to return to its original form after being bent, compressed, or stretched. A rubber band is resilient; a coffee cup that is dropped, spilled and broken is not.
Similarly, for a person resilience is the ability to grasp, assimilate and move forward from a disruption or change. Instead of returning to the original form like the rubber band, a resilient person is his same self but with the new information incorporated into the way he is and works. Read more
Don’t miss a thing!
Subscribe
in a ReaderSubscribe
via E-mail
-
