Change implementation often crosses functional lines in organizations. For example, consider a project designed to improve inventory accuracy, which is driven by the supply chain function, but requires adoption by people in operations who will use the system. The people in operations don’t report to the supply chain function, so the change may not be a priority for them.
What do you do when the organizational function that needs to adopt the change is not the one trying to implement it? Here are three tips for influencing across organizational boundaries:
Share Sponsorship
In the example, the leader of the supply chain group is the sponsor of the project. To gain commitment from the operations leader, they’ll need to share some ownership of the project. That way, they and their teams become participants in the change instead of unwilling victims.
Involve leaders whose teams need to adopt change to be a part of the guiding coalition for the project. Ask the sponsor to partner with the other leader on decisions. Invite the other leader to help make the project work for them, instead of forcing them to do it in a way that only works for the sponsoring department. Make it easier for them to lead the change in their area by clarifying their role.
Find Mutual Goals
Different functions may have conflicting goals. Local optimization means departments pursue their own goals at the expense of others’ performance. On the other hand, groups that find common ground can work together to achieve mutual goals. In our example, the supply chain department aims to minimize inventory. The operations group strives to produce efficiently. These two goals are often at odds. However, both groups want timely delivery of materials without shortages, which is supported by the inventory accuracy project.
Step back and identify a mutual goal or one that is more organization-wide, and encourage both groups to commit to achieving it. If one function must sacrifice their own goals for the greater good of the organization, align recognition programs and management expectations so they can be rewarded for achieving organizational goals at the expense of their own.
Fix Their Problems
When departments are interdependent, performance in one function affects the other. In our example, the supply chain group provides materials to the operations group. In the past, system inaccuracies have caused delays and shortages of materials, which affects efficiency. If the supply chain function shows that adopting the project will eliminate these frustrations, the operations group will be more likely to support it.
Show how a performance improvement in the department driving change will improve performance in the one that adopts it. Point to past deficiencies and complaints that will be addressed by the change (even if it means admitting poor performance in the past). Allow the adopting function to share in the benefits of the project.
When the function that is implementing change is different from the one that will need to adopt it, organizational boundaries can seem to diminish the importance of the change. Involve the adopting group in the implementation in meaningful ways, so the project can become a higher priority for them. In spite of the language in this article, develop a collective “we,” instead of distinguishing “us” versus “them.”
Redefine Consequences to Gain Commitment to Achieving Results
‘ What gets measured gets done’ doesn’t it, so a good CEO will see the need for cross boundary change, and set it up that way including adjustment of measures for both parts of the organisation. Part of the problem of not being interested or not making change a priority is that they are still chasing existing results I.e measures, that haven’t been changed. Only the most agile can keep BAU going and implement change, but the bigger the change is the harder that is even if your organisation is naturally agile. So instead of change being delivered on hope, set the measures up, align them to those goals Heather mentions and then start talking about how to fix the problem.
Heather,
To build on your advice on ‘how’ to do these things, practitioners should note that resistance in interdependent change is of two types – Barriers, and Unintended consequences.
To use your example, in a supply chain transformation project, where the consultant was using Advanced Management Consulting, the supply chain, procurement, finance, R&D, and other functions expressed 48 Barriers to a successful program and 13 concerns for Unintended consequences.
Barriers:
– They all agreed on 5 of them and quickly identified mitigating solutions.
– Of the 43 concerns (48-5) around which they were misaligned, they triaged 27 where they said: “We need to come to an agreement whether or not these are barriers.”
– Of these 27, 4 were invalidated, (insufficient reasoning was expressed to validate them even using virtual reasoning input forms.)
– 11 were validated and mitigating actions designed.
– The last 12 (27-4-11) were taken from “You think this is a barrier, well we don’t.” to “We all agree that will be a barrier.” then mitigating actions created.
i.e. Every concern was 1. surfaced, 2. validated, 3. misalignment reconciled, then 4. mitigated if valid.
The same process was used on the 13 concerns for Unintended consequences expressed as…”You want to do x. but if you do, that will hurt me/us/them in this way.”
The other key point here is that just working on one or two items is valuable but insufficient. The volume of Barriers and Unintendeds referenced above is typical. Facilitation that resolves single digit concerns feels good but rarely created genuine, full endorsement.
Great article.
Michael
Another great post Heather. Your photo made me squeamish but your suggestions calmed me down. Love the practicality of the tactics. Great comments from others as well.