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.

Chris shared the story of his career as an internal change agent within Lockheed Martin.  It’s an interesting story interwoven with the path of a long-term initiative to continually build operating excellence in the company through Lean Six Sigma.  He shared a number of tips for how to influence change without authority.

Listen here (30 minutes):

Be sure to visit the radio show page to listen to past episodes and subscribe to the show.

Except the bonus was paid on the accuracy of the total number of cases projected.  It didn’t matter what category, or what SKU.  If the sales manager said he was going to sell 100,000 cases, it didn’t matter what was in the cases.  This makes determining an accurate forecast as easy as mathematically possible.  Good for the sales managers, bad for anyone who needed to use the information.

One customer of the forecast was the production planning department, which needed an accurate forecast at least by product group (e.g. a 24ct package vs. a 48ct package of widgets), and ideally by SKU (e.g. 24ct red vs. 24ct blue).  Since the sales managers were not expected to be accurate to that degree, the forecast accuracy incentive was essentially worthless to those who actually needed the forecast to be accurate.

The actual desired behavior was not designed into the incentive program.

Ultimately, the forecast accuracy incentive was ignored anyway.  Sales managers were paid even more when they sold more.  In fact the prevailing attitude in the sales department was not to meet forecast but to beat it.  Anyone who did so was celebrated.

Competing incentives – both money and adulation – drowned out the forecast accuracy incentive.

Bad incentive!

Please share your own examples of bad incentives.

After all this thinking about flossing, it occurred to me (while flossing) that an important factor in change is identity.

When the change is truly accomplished, a necessary caveat is that the person who has gone through the change has in some way incorporated it into their identity.  That is, they see the new attitude, behavior, etc. as who they are and what they do.

In the context of my Challenge to start flossing, I thought, why can’t I just start thinking, “I’m a flosser.  I floss.”  If someone asks, “Do you floss?” the answer would be “Yes.”

Instead of thinking of all the ways to remember to floss, or motivate myself to floss, I could just think of myself as someone who flosses.

If I continue to think of myself as someone who doesn’t floss, or doesn’t like to floss, or can’t maintain this healthy habit, then this exercise is an uphill battle.  But, if I can change my perspective and just give myself the new title, I can eliminate a lot of struggle and resistance.

“If you want to be somebody else, change your mind.” – Sister Hazel

A comment from yesterday’s post made me think that to truly incorporate flossing into my identity that it needs to go further.  Martin said “floss for your family,” which reminded me that if I’m a flosser then my kids should be flossers as well.  My next step will be to see if 4-year-olds can floss.

Enough about flossing!

I hope you enjoy and learn from taking on your own Change Agent Challenge.

My Change Agent Challenge:

Part 1:  Motivation

Part 2:  Integration

In Part 1 of My Change Agent Challenge, I discussed the ways that I increased my motivation to start and continue flossing.

Even though it’s something that I want to do, I still have a hard time remembering to do it.  Since flossing is not part of the daily routine, once the autopilot is on, the new step is easily skipped.

Realizing this was happening, I started by paying attention to the autopilot itself.  And when I thought about how it worked, it turns out it was counting.  That’s right.  Each night my brain would do a mental checklist to make sure I had done all the required activities before going to sleep.  If I had forgotten to wash my face, for example, there would be a disconnect.

So, to integrate flossing into the routine, I had to consciously add a +1 to the activity count.  I wrote the new number on a Post-It and put it on the mirror to try to retrain my brain on the new count.

I still found myself reaching for the toothbrush first when the new step before brushing is now supposed to be flossing.  The next step in my analysis was to look at the physical environment. There were two problems.

The first was that the counter was too cluttered so I had to look for the floss each time. That’s an obvious fix.  Clear off the counter so only the necessary tools are available.

The second was that the toothbrush holder was far from the rest of the floss and toothpaste.  If my first instinct was to reach for the toothbrush, then the floss should be right there so I grab it instead.  So, I bought a new toothbrush holder so now my husband and I don’t share one across our long counter.  Now my toothbrush is right next to the sink.  And the floss is right there next to it.

It takes time to retrain your autopilot, but if you pay attention to what it’s doing, you can find ways to stop and integrate new activities.

My Change Agent Challenge:

Part 1:  Motivation

Part 3:  Identity

“People who smoke cigarettes, they say ‘You don’t know how hard it is to quit smoking.’ Yes I do. It’s as hard as it is to start flossing.” – Mitch Hedberg

After a dentist appointment two weeks ago, I decided that I needed to start flossing.  Neither the dentist nor the hygienist gave me a guilt trip about it.  They obviously know that doesn’t work, and don’t bother trying.

No, I just know that I need to do it if I’m going to have my own teeth when I’m 80.  Plus, it occurred to me that as a change practitioner, I should be able to figure out how to make myself start flossing!  And so began the challenge.

Let’s talk motivation.

By the time you have a burning platform with flossing, it’s too late.  The effects of not flossing are long-term, or at least not immediate.  The risk of getting cavities or gum disease are not enough to have made me floss in the past.  In fact, they found a cavity that needed filling at that appointment, and it was nowhere near the part affected by floss.  So how is that for mismatched consequences!

The feeling that made me start flossing was a combination of embarrassment and a little paranoia.  It was obvious in the cleaning appointment that I hadn’t been flossing, and in the middle of it I thought, “I should have remembered to floss for the last 2 weeks before this appointment so it wouldn’t be so obvious that I don’t floss.”  Also, there were 5 days between the cleaning and the filling appointments, and I was sure that if I didn’t floss in between that somehow they would know and would somehow judge me.  Really, I was just judging myself.  Why can’t I do something that takes just moments and is so simple?

So I had successfully started flossing, but the next dentist appointment isn’t for 6 months.  I had to come up with more reasons to continue flossing after the second appointment.

And really, this is it.  I decided that I would blog about it in the context of The Change Agent Challenge.  And if I was going to do that, I would have to keep flossing.  Knowing that I would be making my intention to keep flossing public gave me a reason to continue the effort.

The primary motivator at work here is commitment.  When someone makes a commitment to someone else they are more likely to meet that commitment.  And so here it is:  “I’m going to keep flossing.”

I’m also linking the activity to something that is more interesting to me than the activity itself.  By making it a challenge about change, I’ve raised the importance level of flossing in my mind.  It’s not just about my teeth any more.  It’s about my ability to implement change.

My Change Agent Challenge:

Part 2:  Integration

Part 3:  Identity

With that in mind, I invite you to participate in a challenge that I expect will both increase your learning about change and also result in change itself.

The challenge is this:

1. Implement a change in yourself.
2. Take notes.

The change you take on might be an attitude, a habit, lifestyle, or anything else.  Perhaps you have a New Year’s resolution that you’ve long since broken, or something else you know you need to do but haven’t done.

For me, it’s flossing.

The impetus for this idea was a not-so-perfect dentist appointment two weeks ago.  I decided I needed to start flossing and found myself journaling about it as I started thinking about how to best influence my own behavior.  It turns out there is a lot to consider about change even when trying to implement a seemingly small change in what might seem like the easiest subject:  myself.

For the rest of the week I’ll post what I’ve learned in the last couple of weeks as I try to make a regular habit of flossing.

I hope you’ll take me up on The Change Agent Challenge and share what you learn.  Please start by sharing your challenge in the comments below.

If you’re a blogger and will be sharing your own results on your blog, please link back to this post and I’ll be happy to add a link to yours.

Are you up to the Challenge?

My Change Agent Challenge:

Part 1:  Motivation

Part 2:  Integration

Part 3:  Identity

Of course, this doesn’t happen overnight.  And you can’t go straight from where you are now to where you want to be.  There has to be a journey.  The key is to not be sidetracked by the process of change.

Kurt Lewin (1890 – 1947) was the first to describe change as a 3-step process:

1. Unfreezing – dismantling the old way, creating a sense of urgency and a need to change
2. Changing – a period of transition, challenging the old way but not really knowing what the new way is
3. Freezing – a returning to a sense of normalcy and comfort, crystallizing the new way

A good example of this is in a case study I wrote called A Roundabout Path to Increasing Employee Suggestions – the roundabout part is exactly what I’m talking about here.

In the case, the three steps could be described like this:

1. Unfreezing – We started a steering committee separate from the executive team to collect and manage ideas.  We challenged the concept of paying for ideas.
2. Changing – The steering committee collected ideas, and was proactive in the response and tracking.  We started a weekly newsletter to keep idea-generation and problem solving at the forefront.  Idea submission levels increased dramatically.
3. Freezing – Managers started holding regular meetings with their direct reports to identify and discuss opportunities for improvement, and to brainstorm on ways to address the issues that came up.  The number of ideas, maintained by managers in a central database, increased even further.

If we had stopped with the centralized suggestion box as the final way for employees to submit suggestions, then we wouldn’t have followed through with the ultimate purpose of the change program:  to increase innovation, not because employees submitted more ideas, but because managers asked for and valued them, and involved their teams in solving business problems.

Bottom line:  It’s important to not get stuck in the change step, and keep in mind the final state and ultimate mindset change that you are going after.  Plan to make your change initiative obsolete.

Inquiry:  What will your organization look like when your initiative dissolves?

This post is also featured at Tenacious Tortoise.

As the Senior Manager of Strategy Management Performance Excellence in a large IT department within a much larger corporation, Pamela Santiago has built a team that has become a center of excellence in change management and strategy execution within the larger organization. Her story also shows how change can start within a support unit as a proving ground, then branch out into the rest of the company. Listen for insights on what makes a successful change agent and change management team.

In 2003, I was finishing up the MBA program at DePaul University with the Change Management course, and met with the CEO of Jel Sert (where I was an employee) to see if he had any topics I could study for the class group project. He asked me to look into the reason the company struggled to collect ideas from the workforce. The employee survey conducted showed that one of the culprits was that employees had no sense of direction for ideas; they did not know the most important areas where they should focus their creativity.

The solution was to develop and communicate the strategy to the organization. In the first attempt at strategy development, we made up our own methodology. Although it generated a lot of great discussion, the result was a list of goals that promptly ended up on the proverbial shelf. The following year, a brochure for training by Balanced Scorecard Collaborative crossed my desk. After going to the training, I convinced the CEO that Balanced Scorecard was the solution for developing and sharing the strategy with the rest of the organization.

The Balanced Scorecard is a strategy management methodology that defines organizational success from four perspectives: financial, customer, process and learning & growth. It consists of two key tools: the strategy map, which is a one-page visual representation of the strategy, and the scorecard itself, which includes the measures and targets that form the heart of the methodology. For more information, see any of the books or articles written by Drs. Robert Kaplan and David Norton, the originators of the Balanced Scorecard concept.

By the end of 2004, the executive team had developed the strategy map and the scorecard. Had we finished there, it would have ended up on the shelf like the previous plan. However, as a communications and progress-tracking tool, the Balanced Scorecard methodology provides the means to execute the strategy instead of just documenting it.

The first act of communicating the strategy to the organization was an all-corporate meeting in which the executive team presented the strategy map. Shortly thereafter, each department head conducted meetings with their employees to help link their jobs to the strategy map. On a monthly basis, we published a Strategy Update newsletter and the CEO shared progress at a luncheon.

The executive team met monthly to review the scorecard. The scorecard itself was kept in Microsoft Excel on a shared server. Each metric owner was responsible for updating his piece of the scorecard.

Progress was made on the strategic plan through initiatives – projects that focus on closing the gaps between current measure values and the defined targets. Most initiatives at Jel Sert took the form of process improvement teams, which focused on objectives such as improving operational flexibility, improving order fulfillment, and increasing quality levels.

The Balanced Scorecard effort lasted for about a year from the time the strategy map was completed to the date of the final scorecard in December 2005. In retrospect, I attribute the failure to gain traction on the following issues:

Not setting expectations for leadership commitment
The family that owned Jel Sert had run the company based on gut instinct and industry knowledge – successfully, for the most part – for the previous 80 years. I suspect that writing down the strategy and measuring against it were confining for the owners. In general, it is important to understand the implications of the change for the executive team and make sure they are committed to changing the way they do business. In this case, the executive team had to increase their level of accountability through agreement to a plan, measuring progress, and by communicating their intentions to the rest of the organization.

Not communicating enough
As a privately held company, the owners had to communicate more than they previously felt comfortable. Although employees appreciated and utilized the additional information, there was a limit to the amount of information the owners were willing to share. While everyone received the strategy map, only management had access to the scorecard. Communicating more specific information may have helped focus the organization on achieving key objectives.

Confusion about nomenclature
When using a specific methodology like Balanced Scorecard, it is important to agree on naming conventions, as the language can otherwise be confusing. Having consistent definitions at the executive level will make it easier for employees to have a clear understanding of how to interpret the information they are given.

Getting hung up on perfect measures
Focus strategy meetings on issues, not on measures or targets. It is easy to get hung up on the numbers themselves and not on finding solutions. The measures are sometimes not perfect. It is more important to know if you are moving in the right direction.

Initiative scope creep
Until the methodology has been proven, focus the efforts on gaining small strategic wins. At Jel Sert, once the process improvement program had been set up to improve strategic processes several non-strategic processes were included as well. When the non-strategic project successes were celebrated before any material strategic improvements, the program lost its perceived importance.

Although the formal Balanced Scorecard process is no longer used at Jel Sert, positive remnants remain. Managers talk about strategy, and process improvement teams continue to form around key objectives. Some of the fundamental measures that were created for the scorecard are still used to track performance. The company has thrived in the last couple of years, based on acquisitions and strategic decisions that did not fit into the original strategy map.

Despite this fizzled implementation, the Balanced Scorecard is a great methodology for strategy execution. Like any change initiative, the leaders have to be fully committed to the process – at the beginning and throughout – and change agents need to be vigilant in reducing factors that make the organization lose focus.

If you enjoyed this article, you may also like:

• Tips for Leading a Successful Transformation
• Case Study:  A Roundabout Path to Increasing Employee Suggestions
• Avoid Scattershot Change:  Plan Communication