Word mavens and time keepers
December 30, 2009
So here we are. With much fanfare and hopeful anticipation we begin a new decade. Everyone has made their Top 100 lists for the last 10 years. At last, the still nameless decade is finally over, right?
Well, technically no. The word mavens and official time keepers (whoever they are) will tell you that the decade does not officially begin until 2011. 2010 is the last year of the 00’s. Just like the first year of the millennium was 2001, not 2000.
It’s these same word mavens that maintain that everyone else improperly uses the words “ironic” and “moot.”
Which is entirely my point. If everyone ascribes new meaning to a word, then effectively, that word holds that meaning, regardless of whether it is in the dictionary. We are choosing to end the decade now, whether or not the people who count time agree.
This phenomenon is something to keep in mind when you are selecting language to communicate your change initiative. Just because you decide on words and their meaning doesn’t mean everyone else will choose to use the same words, or give them the same meaning.
Once I was facilitating an executive team on creating a strategy map (a la Balanced Scorecard). Technically, the oblong bubbles on the map are called objectives, but the team started calling them “footballs” due to their shape. “Footballs” does not mean much in the context of strategy, but for some reason it stuck.
When the organization starts using your language improperly or choosing their own words to help them assimilate what it going on, it’s not necessarily a bad thing. After all, it’s better than ignoring it altogether. However, you will have to decide whether the official language is worth fighting for – or whether you can adopt their words as the new official ones.
What language has your team or organization distorted from the original meaning? What is the effect on your initiative?
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
A change agent by any other name
July 22, 2009
Even as I start an internet radio show on BlogTalkRadio called The Change Agent’s Dilemma, at times I think we need a new, less jargon-y term for “change agent.”
I don’t know about you, but I’ve never seen someone with a job title of “Change Agent.” I’ve seen Manager of Change Management (isn’t that really just a Change Manager?) and Change Management Consultant among others, but never Change Agent.
I’m searching for a general term for someone who is implementing organizational change without being the one in authority. (Because there is already a term for someone in a position of authority who is implementing change => Leader.)
Here are a few ideas:
Change Facilitator
According to the dictionary, a facilitator is a person (or thing) that facilitates. And facilitates is “to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.).”
Change Practitioner
I’m on the board for Organization Change Alliance, whose vision is to be “the learning community of choice for organization development practitioners in metro Atlanta.” The dictionary lists practitioner as “a person engaged in the practice of a profession, occupation, etc.”
Change Stylist
I recently passed by a TV showing Food Network, and they showed a chef’s title as “Food Stylist.” So why not “Change Stylist?”
Change Agent
Just to keep it in the running – an agent is “one that acts or has the power or authority to act, or one empowered to act for or represent another.” Another definition (perhaps the one intended) is “a means by which something is done or caused.”
What do you think? Do we need a new title? What would you like to be called?
A measurable definition of culture
April 21, 2009
Until now, the best definition I had heard for Culture is “the way we do things around here.” While that provides a good idea of what culture means, it leaves it difficult to measure.
On Sunday, Andy Stanley at North Point Community Church defined Culture as the collective conscience of a group: The ought to’s and the ought not’s. In other words, the culture is the collection of behaviors that the members of a group generally believe you should and shouldn’t do.
The new definition provides a way to measure a culture as the aggregation of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. When you can measure something, then you are able to deliberately change it.
Consider whether the following behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable (or ought to or ought not) within your organization:
- Sharing ideas or feedback outside the “chain of command”
- Holding peers accountable to deadlines or performance
- Celebrating team successes
- Bringing your kids to work when no one can watch them
- Playing practical jokes
- Working on a team outside your area of expertise
- Texting or typing during meetings
- Letting a female coworker have the last seat at the table
- Hosting competitions between employees
- Deference to titles
- Lending a helping hand when a coworker suffers a hardship
- Showing up late to meetings
- Working independently on a project
Of course, these are just the tip of the iceberg. Each organization has its own quirks and implied necessary behaviors.
Inquiry: What ought members of your organization do or not do?
For a useful assessment, check out the Organizational Culture Inventory (OCI). I haven’t used it in practice, but I remember using it for an exercise during my MBA program years ago.
What is “Enclaria?”
July 17, 2008
The name is totally fictitious, as indicated by the first time I googled it, zero entries came up. When I was brainstorming names for my company, I searched online for the basic building blocks of language, namely Latin and Greek roots and prefixes. I knew I wanted the name to include some form of “clar” as in clarify or clarity. Several years ago it became clear to me and still resonates today that bringing clarity is what I do and what coaching is all about. “En” is a prefix meaning “into,” “cover with,” or “cause.” I added “ia” to the end because I liked the way it sounded and it has a slight but not overt feminine flair to it. So, the name “Enclaria” is meant to conjure a sense of giving clarity to leadership.
Plus, “Enclaria Leadership” sounds like something Harry Potter might say while waving his wand, and instantaneously the object of the spell would illuminate with a sudden knowledge of who they need to be and what they need to do next. Sometimes, coaching happens that way.
A definition of Enterprise Transformation
July 1, 2008
On Friday, I attended a meeting of the Atlanta chapter of the Association for Strategic Planning, featuring a presentation by Dr. Bill Rouse of the Tennenbaum Institute for Enterprise Transformation at Georgia Tech. The presentation encompassed enterprise challenges that lead to change, a theory of transformation, and the ends, means and scope of transformation. While each person at the meeting probably considered different pieces of the presentation useful, what stuck out to me was the definition of Enterprise Transformation:
“Enterprise transformation is driven by experienced and/or anticipated value deficiencies that result in significantly redesigned and/or new work processes as determined by management’s decision making abilities, limitations, and inclinations, all in the context of the social networks of management in particular, and the enterprise in general.” (original emphasis)
Here’s my interpretation:
Value Deficiencies: Your burning platform creates the urgency to change.
Work Processes: Value is created through work, so transformation happens at the process level.
Decision Making: Change happens based on management’s decisions (read: actions).
Social Networks: The enterprise’s system of influence will determine where transformation occurs. (Dr. Rouse described the social networks as an immune system.)
If you would like to learn more, there are links to books, articles and working papers at the Tennenbaum Institute website.
Lack of a Definition Renders Accountability Meaningless
May 1, 2008
Accountability is one of those principles of business that is an important foundation of organizational culture but is easily shrugged off as a buzz-word. Ask someone in your organization to define accountability, and you may hear any number of answers, from “I don’t know” to “following the rules.” You might even see some eyes roll.
Accountability is rarely explicitly defined, whether for the organization as a whole, or for the departments and teams that work within them. While a well-designed performance management system may hint at the underlying accountability philosophy, rarely does an organization define the daily act of accountability, even for its leadership team for whom it is most important. Read more
Don’t miss a thing!
Subscribe
in a ReaderSubscribe
via E-mail
-
