Three Reasons Colleagues Won’t Hesitate to Join Your Cause
August 19, 2010
Many people who implement change wish that colleagues would just immediately go along with the program without much resistance. It would be nice and easy if you could just announce the change and have people automatically get on board and say, “Just tell me what I need to do!”
To think that everyone in the organization would instantly participate without hesitation is only a dream, of course. If change were that easy, they wouldn’t need you to lead it! Plus, the change and its outcomes are made better by understanding and working with the resistance that comes up. However, it does help to have people on your side from the start, who don’t need much convincing to help you out.
Most likely, there are reflexive followers in your organization, people who only need to hear about your project and they want to know how they can help. The following are three reasons people impulsively participate in change:
1. They connect with the change.
Occasionally, your change initiative will trigger someone’s curiosity or passion. The minute you say you are working on a [sustainability, innovation, leadership, Lean, you-name-it] initiative, they want to be involved. The topic is part of their expertise, or perhaps they would like it to be. They know the problem you are trying to solve, and they want to be part of the solution.
2. They have nothing better to do.
Have you ever gone into somebody’s workspace and they seem relieved that you interrupted? If you asked them to do anything at that moment besides what they were working on, they probably would. Some employees stuck in the daily grind are looking for something more meaningful, interesting or just different to be involved in. The opportunity to use their skills (or learn new ones) to help make a difference in the organization may be just what they have been waiting for to get them out of their rut. Extend an invitation, and they will likely show up.
3. They believe in you.
Some of your colleagues will get involved simply because it’s you. If you were not involved, they may not have considered it. There may be a variety of sources of this adulation. Some may view it as an opportunity to learn from you. Some see that you are headed toward great things and want to follow in your footsteps. Others may just know that if you are involved, it must be a good idea. Your friends will naturally want to work with you on a project that you are passionate about.
You may think that in order to have that kind of magnetism, you must be charismatic. When you are passionate about your project, your charisma appears. Far more important traits, however, are integrity and respect. If colleagues believe you are trustworthy and that your intentions are noble, they will honor you with their time and attention.
Locate people in your organization who connect with what you are doing, who crave something new, or who are your personal fans, and you will have found instant followers for your change initiative.
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.
On the Radio: Ten Essential Tools for Change Agents
March 16, 2010
This morning on The Change Agent’s Dilemma radio show, I shared Ten Essential Tools for Change Agents.
The Ten Essential Tools include personal influence and structural influence methods, plus a focused foundation that every change agent needs to start with. If your change initiative is stalled, use the Ten Tools as a checklist to see what areas might be in need of a boost.
Listen here (30 minutes):
Be sure to visit the new radio show page to find other ways you can tune in to the show.
If you prefer to read a small synopsis of the list, see the previous post Ten Essential Tools for Change Agents. However, you will miss out on a special offer that is presented at the end of the show!
Everyday influence tactics not found in leadership books
February 18, 2010
While setting forth inspiring visions, making bold decisions in support of change, and modeling desired behavior with integrity is the stuff of leadership legend, change ultimately happens in small steps taken daily to nudge people in the right direction. Consider the following influence tactics that people use every day at work that, when used with caution and in small doses, can help get people to do things they might not otherwise do. You won’t find these in leadership books!
Nagging. When someone is dragging their feet or in need of small behavior correction, a few repetitive requests or reminders might do the trick. The risk is that you might become an annoyance and he might dig in his heels further. Before the nagging gets to that level, ask what might be holding him back, and offer to help.
Begging. Although getting on your knees and crying will most likely not win you favor, going the route of “Please… Pretty please… Pretty please with sugar on top…” used occasionally with someone you know will work. It is important for your dignity that you escalate your request with increasing urgency without sounding desperate.
Ridiculing. You should only taunt someone you know well and in good humor. The last thing you want to do is hurt someone’s feelings or offend him by striking a nerve, so ridicule coworkers with caution. But, insinuating that your colleague doesn’t want to try something because he is a sissy, or is not smart enough, or whatever he would want to prove wrong might spring him into action.
Bribery. While it sounds illicit, bribery is simply offering something in exchange for what you would like the other person to do. Mutual back-scratching or trading favors are common ways to influence someone who doesn’t believe the value of performing an activity is worth the effort to do it. Note: Do not offer or request anything illegal or unethical!
Flattery. The saying goes, “Flattery will get you nowhere,” but anyone who has been given a well-placed acknowledgment or compliment knows it can go a long way. Of course, someone will see through a compliment given just before a request is made. She will know you are buttering her up. But if you can brighten someone’s day with a genuine acknowledgment, she is bound to repay it.
Threats. As a last resort, it might help to inform someone that if she doesn’t play along, something bad is going to happen. The manner in which you send this message makes all the difference. It’s most effective if it sounds like a kind warning instead of intimidation. If your next course of action is to get her boss involved, it might be a good idea to bring this up, so she has the opportunity to act before that happens.
When have these worked for you?
How have they backfired?
What would you add to the list?
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
Traits and skills of effective change agents
October 1, 2009
Yesterday I received a call from a recruiter who found my site through a search engine and saw that I worked with change agents. She asked if I either had or knew of an assessment to qualify candidates for change agent positions. Her client was specifically looking for a canned proven test. Unfortunately, I had to share that I didn’t know of any (and asking my network has also not netted any existing assessments).
In fact, if implementing change were that scientific and predictable, success would certainly be easier, faster, and occur more often. One of the reasons I offer one-on-one coaching for change agents is that each scenario is different, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to implementing change.
I do believe there are certain characteristics or skills of change agents that are important, and that I watch for while coaching. If any of these are lacking, I might explore further to see if improvement might pave the way to success.
- Systems thinker. Seeing the relationships between moving parts. If you pull one lever, what cogs are likely to move?
- Relational. Cultivating relationships at multiple levels of an organization.
- Analytical. Using data and measurements to assess progress.
- Influential. Using multiple forms of influence to get people to try new things and adopt different behaviors.
- Resilience. Organizational change is rife with obstacles and resistance. Resilient individuals will keep going.
- Facilitation. Most change projects I know involve some form of team facilitation.
- Difficult conversations. For example giving feedback to executives.
- Communication. Beyond conversations, speaking and writing are also important for change agents.
- Energy. Drive. Conviction that the change must happen.
- Observant. Having a knack for seeing opportunities for improvement and discrepancies that are hurting the initiative.
What else would you add to this list? Any that you agree or disagree with?
Avoid Scattershot Change: Plan Communication
July 14, 2009
No change initiative can occur successfully without proper organizational communication. When communicating for change, messages are conveyed to audiences with the purposes of keeping people informed and mobilizing the organization. Communication is the means to gain attention, educate, and get individuals and groups to take action to move the change initiative forward.
As an internal change advocate for your organization, communication is one of the main tools you use to reach your goal and desired outcome. Yet, we frequently see people who are responsible for implementing change who use communication in a haphazard fashion, without a solid plan. The resulting hodgepodge of newsletters, posters and meetings tells a less-than-compelling story of change. Read more
The perpetual nature of organization change
June 30, 2009
I’m reading Daryl Conner’s book Managing at the Speed of Change, published in 1992. On page 41, he lists the following changes that organizational leaders considered crucial to success, compiled from a survey he conducted.
- Initiating major reorganization plans
- Improving competitiveness through the implementation of total quality-management processes
- Incorporating information systems as an integral part of business and production strategies
- Integrating customer-service mentality and behaviors throughout the organization
- Responding to new or increased global competition
- Accommodating the turmoil associated with mergers, acquisitions, and leveraged buyouts
- Redefining the organizational culture to be more supportive of corporate business objectives
- Initiating cost-containment mechanisms
- Rightsizing the work force
- Establishing employee-involvement programs to generate a sense of empowerment and commitment
- Establishing new products and markets
- Incorporating new production/manufacturing procedures and machinery
- Adjusting to the changing profile and needs of today’s employees
- Complying with new government regulations
Sound familiar? We’re still facing the same challenges today as we were 17 years ago – even some of the terminology is the same. Perhaps the difference is the number of concurrent changes going on, or the rate at which organizations and people are expected to change. (Consider the fact that this book was written at the dawn of the internet.)
The list speaks to the perpetual nature of organizational change. In the last 17 years, much research, learning and theorizing has been done to better understand how to make change easier. The fact is that change might get easier and better understood, but it never goes away. There is always a new set of employees, circumstances, leadership, technology and environmental factors that require a better way to move forward. The way we accomplish that tends to fall into the same categories of change over the years.
What would you add to this list in light of today’s environment?
How many of these are you currently working on in your organization?
A common picture of the ideal organization
May 18, 2009
Even though organizations have different purposes and strategies, I think we tend to have a common picture of the ideal characteristics of an effective organization. I wonder if these are the things you are trying to bring about in your organization:
- Multi-directional trust (leadership, employees, peers)
- Transparency and feedback
- Ample, clear, compelling, consistent communication
- High-performing teams
- Data-based decisions
- Accountability to results
- Clarity of vision
- Congruence of personal work with organizational goals
- Alignment between business units and departments
- Breakdown of silos, turf wars, and self-protection
- Atmosphere of mutual respect
- Employee engagement
- The idea of a “well-oiled machine”, efficient standardized processes
- Effective, value-added meetings
I would love to hear what else you might add to this list, and if any of these would actually decrease your success. Please share using the comments.
Don’t miss a thing!
Subscribe
in a ReaderSubscribe
via E-mail
-
