You only know what you know.

In other words, you can identify all the impacts that cross your sphere of knowledge and understanding. What you need to  find out is whether there are other impacts that you don’t know about.

For example, you may be completely across how changing the sales entry process will affect your sales force and customers.  What you may not know is:

• that it will require changes to the back end systems that feed the database or the proposed functionality will not work
• and that these changes can’t be made before year end or the year to date totals can’t be reported on
• and that there’s been a freeze on IT changes because the company needs to bed down the new operating system for 3 months….
• and so on.

There’s only one solution to knowing what you know. And that is getting people from multiple functions at multiple levels to have a  conversation about the change and it’s potential flow on effects. Many a change program has  had ordinary results because the change impacts were not properly identified, leaving people scrambling to fight fires and create last minute workarounds.

Recognising that you only know what you know will make you a better change leader. Not only wt will force you to enquire broadly about how the change could affect all other parts of the organisation, it’s also a great engagement strategy.

No surprise right? Haven’t we been reading about these numbers for years now? We keep getting feedback that we are “crap” at managing change. And yet not much changes.

It’s time to wake up and smell the coffee. Doing more of what we are already doing will not help us to turn the corner. We still rush to solution, don’t talk to our people enough, don’t connect change with strategy, often underestimate people’s reactions and time-frames to get “comfortable” and so on.

My fundamental belief is that we need to rethink our approach to change and start building awareness of change processes, frameworks and tools at all levels. If change is the big constant, why aren’t we equipping all our people to work in this environment?

When computers changed our world, didn’t everyone have to learn enough to use them?

Here we are in a world where everyone experiences change, some welcome and some not, and yet we provide no context about how change gets implemented, what gets considered as part of a change program, how people respond to change, and how companies “manage” it. We are asking people to operate in a vacuum of knowledge.

Imagine if everyone had a base level of knowledge about these things. Then they could recognise aspects of the change program as  they happened. They could provide feedback if they felt engagement was insufficient. They could contribute to the process from a place of knowledge rather than a place of forced ignorance.

We need to change the game and give our people the information and tools they need to thrive in this ever-changing world.

What do you think?

We have all experienced the boost you get from simply contemplating something new.  From this point our thoughts can take us in two directions (both familiar to me…)

Direction 1 – We can talk ourselves out of it, thinking things like

“that sounds great but would be really hard”,

I wouldn’t know where to start

if I did that then xxx might happen, so I’d better not

Sound familiar?

Direction 2. We continue to drive forwards with our ideas

That will be a challenge but I’m up for it

Nothing ventured nothing gained

I’m scared as hell so I’d better just do it

It’s my future and I choose to give it a go

Depending on what else is going on in our lives, we might take Direction 1 or 2.  Often we hover in the grey area, trying to make up our minds if the risk is worth it.

Changing our thought patterns and underlying beliefs is hard work.  Often too hard.  This shouldn’t deter us from behaving differently. Often changing our actions or behaviour can lead to the changes in thought patterns we seek.

Taking the action and having it turn out well when we don’t expect it to is a wonderful validator and self-esteem builder.

Feeling fear over a career change doesn’t mean we have to do nothing. We can take the action to explore other careers, and see where that leads us. Forwards motion is rarely a negative experience.

The point is (and it’s a long-winded one today, sorry) that the very act of acting increases motivation.  ACTION trumps APATHY as it were.

That’s why getting people involved in change programs is such a good idea. Just being involved can help people to get across the change more quickly, help them see the benefits and increase their engagement with the process. Hoorah.

What we  can learn from the airlines as they try to adapt their daily operations to an unforeseeable, significant event, is the value of strong contingency planning.

We have seen Qantas contingency plans unfold over the last few days.

• Provisional rescheduling followed by no rescheduling once it was realised that the situation would not resolve quickly.
• Hotels were booked for stranded passengers to wait it out wherever they were “trapped”.
• The biggest challenge will be managing the backlog once flights resume. We have seen the airlines firstly asking people to delay any planned travel for the next few months.
• And yesterday, a statement to the effect that no new bookings were going to be taken. To help people feel more ok about that, the papers published proposed airfares for an economy ticket to the UK, estimated to be around AUD $12,000. Now that’s an incentive to stay home.

I imagine plenty more contingencies have been discussed behind the boardroom doors that outsiders aren’t privy to.

Contingency planning forces you to decide what you’ll do in a worst case scenario. It’s familiar territory in change planning as well.

In my experience things rarely go exactly as planned. They are usually more complex and less succcesful. Not always, but often. Effective change  planning includes planning for alternate outcomes to ones you expect. 

Benefits:

• The time you spend up front is time saved later when you need to implement your contingency plan
• It forces you to question your assumptions about the expected results
• contingency planning gives other people comfort that you are thinking through all possibilities

If you never need to pull  your contingency plans out of the drawer, all well and good. But if you do, then you’re ready with a process and approach to deal with most outcomes.

contingency plan is to

Sadly, the people implementing the system were not very computer literate. They didn’t realise, and failed to consider, that our hardware was not powerful enough to run the reports (I was using Wordstar at the time, which will give you an indication of how long ago it was-if you’re even old enough to remember!). I spent literally hours attempting to run these reports for my boss. The system with its 16 kb of RAM just kept on crashing.

This is an example of the people leading the change failing to consider the organisational context of their clients. Failing to realise they couldn’t run the software adequately. Failing to ask the simple question about what kinds of PC’s they had.

It’s always these simple questions we forget.

The context for change is just as important as the process used to implement the change.  Change leaders need to understand what’s going on for the receivers.

• Are they already aware of the need for change?
• Will they buy in to your story or will they shrug their shoulders and say “here we go again”.
• Who are the influential followers that you should engage early?
• What is the organistional context forthe “receivers” – what else do they have on their plates?
• What is the quality of leadership within the group – will this help or hinder the change initiative?
• What are their current skills? Will skills need upgrading?
• How much support are they likely to need, and what should it look like?

These are just a few of the questions you could ask. Getting your head around their motivations, drivers, skills and current context will help you design a better implementation approach.

Never forget to ask what kinds of PC’s they have.

Most of the organisations I work with are big into professional and formal communication. There seems to be an underlying belief that if you stray from “professional and formal”, you risk damaging your reputation or credibility.

Part of communicating professionally it seems, is keeping our language and sentence structure formal, using jargon, acronyms and technical sounding words. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting adopting twitter abbreviations or saying “Gday mate” at the end of the email. There is a middle ground.

Let me give an example. This is something that might be sent out. It is on the  Professional/Formal side:

“Please read the attached document before the meeting and come prepared with any questions or feedback. If you are unable to attend, let Jane know ASAP so she can make alternative arrangements”,

How about this instead:

“I’ve attached some pre-reading. We’ll use the meeting to get your feedback and questions. If the meeting time doesn’t work for you,  call Jane and we’ll work something else out”.

The first is cold, bland, and sounds like a business with no soul.  The second sounds warm, friendly and actually feels like the sender is a real person who values a more personal relationship.

The reality is that people really notice and appreciate the difference between the two. I can’t count the number of times that clients have mentioned how much they appreciate my relaxed writing style and approach.

In a changing environment, the tone of messages conveys so much. Warm up your messages and people will relate to them more easily. They will stand out from the other communications they receive, and properly done – will contribute to creating the right environment for change.

They may be customers affected by the change, they may be key influencers in the business, they could be leaders who are critical to success, or even external parties. Whoever they are, how do you make sure they really are on board with what you are proposing, not just making the right noises?

5 ways to work out if your stakeholders are on board

1. Listen carefully – what sort of language do they use? If you hear lots of “buts” and reasons why things will be difficult, that’s a good sign they haven’t completely bought in yet
2. Watch them carefully – their body langauge will convey more than their words. Enough said
3. Ask them to present the change and its benefits to another group with you – reluctance could be a signal
4. Ask them what they would do differently if they were you
5. Ask them how their teams feel about the change, and how you both can turn that around.

Firstly she said:

In yoga, the changes are slow and deep. You may notice nothing today, but 3 months from now your mind and body will be in a different place.

How often do we expect people to change their minds or agree with us immediately. We provide a rational reason with a few bullet points for context and think they will come around. Experience tells us otherwise. For one thing, our brains aren’t physically wired that way. A rational approach is not effective in getting people to change long held beliefs – we need to engage people’s emotional brains. And for another thing (terrible English I know), the evidence suggests that deeply held beliefs change slowly, over time, often without us being aware. Slow and deep – like yoga.

The second thing she said was:

You can choose what you want your mind to focus on. Focus on the heat, and the class will be challenging. Focus on the way the warmth lets you stretch more deeply, and the class becomes an opportunity to heal.

You are what you think.  In my first three or four classes, all I could think about was the heat. How draining it was. How much I wanted to get out. When would it be over. You get the picture.These days I never focus on the heat. The heat is warm and welcome – it helps me undo the tensions of the years before.

What we think about hugely affects our mind, our focus, and our behaviour. What’s the parallel in organisations?

Framing conversations in terms of opportunities is more effective than framing them as problems to be solved. Asking people to build on their strengths rather than fix their weaknesses (who can be bothered really?) allows them to open up possibilities rather than close down options. We are what we think.

Okay, so my mind was obviously wandering at times during this yoga class – I need to work on my own focus. But I never focus on the heat in the class.

At any time a leader should be able to ascertain where their team members are in terms of stages of their personal change, and the stage the organisation is at as part of the overall change progam. This dual knowledge puts leaders in the strongest position for understanding and working througn resistance.

For example, lets say you – the leader – knows some team members need more communication about the rationale for the change -why it is a priority.

If the change initiative is in early stages, you know there is plenty of communication and  engagement activities yet to come. If the program is in the later stages then you know  there won’t be much more communication about the rationale from prgram level. You need to provide that information yourself.

An leader educated in change processes has the ability to diagnose issues respond effectively to help their people accept and buy into the change.

If you don’t have awareness of both processes, its a bit like trying to shoot fish in a barrel with a blindfold on. You know those fish are there, but you don’t know where to aim. So you shoot enthusiastically but randomly into the water – after all – how could you miss??

Sadly, it’s never an effective strategy. The outcome is usually that you mostly miss, but sometimes you might wound some fish, who will never look at you the same way again….

OK -maybe dead fish isn’t the best analogy, but you get the picture! The moral of this story is, unintentioned action to help people come to terms with change is often well-intentioned but ineffective, and at worst, causes more harm than good.

We can distinguish the change itself from transition required to make the change effective and embed it:

• The change itself is the day the new activity commences or the change event takes place.
• Transition encompasses all the people, process, system and customer impacts that need to be identified, thought through, planned for and managed –before and after the change date – in order that the change works.

Transition activities start many months before the date the change happens, and often continue many months afterwards to embed the change and sustain new practices.

The Tiger Woods scenario provides a good example of the difference between the two.

The date of change for Tiger was the day he crashed his car, and gave the world a glimpse into his private affairs. What has happened since then  – his team’s media silence, rehabilitation, and then the apology – are example of the transition. These represent an effort to understand the impacts of the change, who is affected, and what needs to be done to miminise risk adn ensure a successful future.

Of course the comparison with organisational change stops there. Tiger did no pre-planning for this change, whereas in organisations we spend time thinking through consequences and impacts before the change occurs. Tiger did no analysis of how his downfall might affect his sponsors, his family, his colleagues or the sport of golf. In organisations we spend time on stakeholder analysis, we spend time on deciding who needs to be on board before we start, we spend hours lining up te right leaders to get behind the change.

The point is, the actual change is the easy part. If you want to bang in a new process, yes – you can go ahead and do it without really doing anything else. But if you want people to adopt the new process, you will need to consider the transition. Most companies fail to do enough work on the transition. They under prepare, or assume the job is done once the change is effective.