Page 1 Page 2
Don’t Make Tomorrow’s Journeys Using Yesterday’s Maps
The key to most of these engagements turns out to be the value propositions as the core of the business model. At the center of any business model are those core definitions of what a company does that should be of value to its customers. Major shifts such as the ones described above can render those definitions less effective – less attractive to customers. Value propositions are the equivalent of the ‘compass rose’ that you find on maps. It defines true north and orientates all actions and directions according to a single assumption. Without a reliable compass rose, actions will be uncoordinated and journeys random.
We start with the data collected. We solicit the assistant of ‘strategic visionaries’. The process begins with a questioning of the core value propositions. The initial message delivery sessions with the board, investors and senior team can spread over a number of weeks and even months. These are guided conversations that result in subsequent research and delivery of new information. The focus of the process – indeed, its objective – is to forge the existing quals of the company into new and more productive value propositions – ones that are more profitable and effective in the new circumstances.
Once the senior team’s work is done, it is time to involve a wider group. We do this by organizing an all-hands retreat. The company group is augmented with strategic resources. The program involves general presentations, breakout sessions and working groups. There are two objectives. The first one is to get additional input – a review of the work that the senior group has done. The second is to begin the process of getting everybody on the same page.
A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats
There is always a rising excitement that comes from these all-hands retreats. Employees who have felt that the company has been drifting – that the leadership just ‘doesn’t get it’ – find new energy and focus. It’s not just that they are receiving a new message that makes more sense – it is that they are involved in crafting that new message – in determining the new direction for the company. The positive energy that can be generated is palpable – there is a feeling of electricity – a renewed feeling of family and common purpose.
Keeping the meetings on focus and productive can be a real challenge for the facilitators. In the early stages it is a matter of getting everybody to see the vision – to get on the same page. In the later stages it is more a challenge of keeping everybody on the same page. As energy levels go up, some people will race ahead or charge off in new directions. The experience is much like nursing a horse back to health. In the early going, you are seeing to its comfort and nutrition. Maybe a slow walk around the paddock is all that is involved. But once the horse has recovered, you may find yourself holding on for dear life as it races through the meadow and over the stone wall!
Consolidating Results – Preparing for the Next Stage
It is vitally important that the program of renewal extend beyond these all-hands meetings. Follow-on sessions should be organized. These meetings should increasingly focus on implementation. One of the risks of the entire process is that the initial rush of enthusiasm is dissipated for a lack of effective outlets. Once you have ‘revved up’ the engine, it is important to let out the clutch. After all, the real purpose is to move the vehicle forward.
© Dr. Earl R. Smith II
~~~~~~~~~~
Related Articles:
-
Moving the Ball
-
Sea Change Brings Change
-
Lack of Accountability – The Core of Failure
-
Knowing Versus Doing – Post-Success Malaise
-
Counting the Cost
-
Attitudes, Agendas, Interventions and Compromises
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Federal Circle provides advisory services to companies working in the federal contracting space. Its core team and network of advisers has a deep understanding of the government contracting space. Together they represent a rich resource for companies trying to generate traction in these very competitive markets. Contact us for a free initial consultation.
Page 1 Page 2
33 Responses to “Helping Companies Adapt to Changing Times – Part One”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Angel Rampy wrote:
Communication and empathy. Organizations going through change survive the challenges when they have an open system of communication.
It is also important to understand that each person will go through the change in their own pace. We must be empathetic to the person initiating the change as well as to those affected by the change. Either end is a lot of work and stress.
Manage the transition – remember it’s not all about moving logistics. Its about affecting people.
Brandon Jones wrote:
1. Communicate openly and consistently (i.e. at all stages of the change process)
2. Let employees know why the change is happening and be upfront with them in how it will impact them in their roles
3. Go in stages. If the entire change is communicated as just one large end-goal, it is destined to fail. If it is separated into a series of small achievable changes, it will be easier to demonstrate successes and thus keep the team engaged in the process (be sure to communicate these small victories, and celebrate them with the team!).
4. More communication! Just announcing the process at the beginning is not enough. It needs to be re-addresses at each step of the process, so the goals and steps and buy-in are not forgotten or lost.
Using this process or one similar, it will be easier to maintain trust from the people within the organization throughout what is likely to be a challenging time. This trust will lead to better chances of success.
Ben Baker wrote:
Here is my take on things. Change is something that has to grow organically through a company, but have real buy in from the top. In other words, mandated top down change does not work and organic grass roots change without corporate buy in goes no where.
There needs to be the identity of what is facilitating the need for change. What is the route problem the organization is facing that causes people to want to change. Slumping sales is not a problem, it is an effect of the route cause. The cause could be inferior product, lack of customer service or other items of this ilk.
Once that route cause or causes have been determined, their needs to be real want at all levels to fix the problem. A glitsy marketing campaign may shift views of the company in the short term, but if the underlying cause is still present, there will be no long term success.
Coleen Davis wrote:
What works for me in this situation, Earl, is to break the revolution down into many small, safe evolutions. It takes a little more work to plan and project manage each of the evolutions, but the results usually speak for themselves. That’s why people who’ve worked with me come to me when they need to make a major change in how business is done and they aren’t sure how to proceed or who to trust.
Steve Cohn wrote:
By teaching them to have empathy toward their employees
Augustine Iacopelli wrote:
Dr. Smith,
The first question to ask is, “why do we need to make the change?” If there is not a succinct answer to this question for all levels of the organization, there is a threat of failure to get buy-in. It can be a very complex implementation, but even the complex must be boiled down to something simple and logical to the majority of the organization.
Then, it is important to ask, “can we affect this change, given our available resources?” If the answer is no, then, “can we obtain the resources needed to make the change?”
If we physically can change, then it becomes a matter of breaking the large change into smaller “bite-sized” pieces that are easier for people to swallow.
The implementation of the process is dictated by the time constraints to bring the pieces into place and the ability for continuity of service and quality. If service continuity/product quality is not threatened by the implementation process itself, I believe that a slower methodical process is justified to help ease people into the transition. However, if there is the potential for consumer impact, then keeping close to the constraints dictated by the implementation process itself is important; the “buy-in” to the change may be fought more in this case, but is a necessary evil to ensure quality delivery to consumers.
Vilas, Interesting observation – could you expand on it? specifically, how could the implementation advance the change process? Dr. Smith
Vilas Salunke wrote:
Well said till now.
I would like to add one more point here…
If BPM / ERP has implemented then it would be more helpfull to adapt change more quickly
Gloria Walker wrote:
In my experience there are some important factors in undertaking change successfully. The first is a clear commitment by the management team to make the change. I’ve seen many change efforts self-destruct because members of the team agreed publicly but worked against the change privately. People can tell what’s actualy going on by what their leaders do more than say. The leader of the change can’t be just one person. If that person leaves, the change stops. Second, the reason for the change and how it will be implemented must be clearly communicated to those affected. It’s best to get them involved in working out the change process so they feel part of the change and take ownership of making the change and understand its impact. Lastly, the entire change activity must be clearly communicated to stakeholders, even if they aren’t directly affected. This is an ongoing activity to explain why the change is being made, what is happening at different parts of the change programme, and how people are responding to the change. I belive that with leadership, involvement and communication, change can be a very beneficial activity for any organisation.
Dan Elder wrote:
Chiming in…
Following Marc’s thoughts, I have a talk (speech? lecture?) that I deliver to groups on “Why Businesses Fail” or alternatively, “Why Businesses Succeed”; same stuff, just adjusting the material to either negative or positive to suit the audience.
Admittedly, it’s a shock speech, but it’s based on what I see continually. There are lots of “reasons” why businesses fail. It’s easy (and ego sparing) to blame the economy, lack of funds, poor quality employees, etc.
However, in my opinion, the #1 reason for business failure is that the owner or executives at the helm refuse to ask for help. Or if they do, typically as a last resort, they refuse to implement the suggestions they receive after asking. In my experience, every other symptom of business failure can be traced back to this one reason.
When I am doing an initial consult with a client, I always stress the need to be willing to change the way they’re doing business. I don’t know what the changes will need to be (yet), but I emphasize that continuing to do business in the same manner is going to continue to reap the same downhill results.
Usually, the leadership gives an intellectual assent, but withholds emotional agreement, even though they may not realize it. Emotional agreements would involve consent to remove, if necessary, the “sacred cows” present in any organization.
In working through the necessary process changes, I can always tell when I’ve found and gored the sacred cow, because the cow bellows loudly. “We’ve always!….We’ve never!….It’s a tradition!…” you get the idea.
Some clients can’t get past the need to change the practices that are dragging them down, subcontiously (sp?) deciding to preserve the sacred cow (“It’s who we are!”) rather than change their corporate ways, at the price of going out of business.
The results are entirely predictable. The marketplace is unforgiving for those who refuse to adapt to its changing ways…
Best,
Dan
Ken, Thanks for the comment. You bring up an interesting and often overlooked part of the change dynamic – looking forward beyond the change and connecting it back to the need for the change in the present. To do this successfully seems to require a buy-in to that future, How did you manage to develop that? Dr. Smith
Ken Talentino wrote:
Communicate, communicate, communicate.
I was involved with a major turnaround resulting in a major downsizing. Team meetings were held in order to explain, where were are, where we are going and how we get there. I was the new GM but apolized for the need to downsize and presented the strategy to prevent it from happening again.
The division ended up growing signficantly in both sales and profits. However, we never forgot the risk of expanding too quickly and the potential negative impact on peoples lives.
A great post – thanks!
Having helped companies automate business processes for more than 30 years, and thus been involved in helping them change their behavior, I believe you and the various people who commented here have it right. Change is a process and provided that Process is followed, it can be managed and it can be accomplished. And equally obviously, especially in light of a story like Theas’, there are good Processes and bad ones!
We spend a great deal of time talking to business executives regarding changing their business processes. To assist us in helping them prepare for change, I wrote a post about the Process itself and in the belief that people undergoing a change experience the same thought-processes and approaches, I’ll provide the link here in case it helps any: http://bit.ly/cxT5UD
Terri L Maurer wrote:
Earl:
If Thea’s example wasn’t so horrible, it would be laughable. Communication is the key to any successful change. Without it and without involving staff from the top of the corporate ladder to the bottom, all hope for success should be given up for dead. The last minute, ‘my way or the highway’ approach to ‘introducing’ change is likely the worst possible scenario. It’s little wonder so much time would be needed to be spent putting out the fires started by their ineffective leaders. Throwing your workers under the bus and along with them, your knowledge base is pretty stupid when you think about it. These leaders would have done far less damage had they decided as a group to leave and build their overnight Utopian future from the bottom up.
Certainly, the world is moving faster than ever with the advent of technology, and yes, it affects everyone in some way. However, it appears that this ‘dream team’ of C-level “geniuses” had sufficient time to meet, develop their ‘future’ model and all that involved, but couldn’t find the time or make the effort to bring their team along with them. There are myriad ways to pass on change and progression to staff. They chose only to use one, and at the very end of the process. If they cared so little about their workforce, I can’t imagine they have even a trace of respect for their customers either.
Marc Smith wrote:
The old saying still applies: “The greatest impediment to success in the future is success in the past.” For me, the greatest challenge has been convincing companies, people, etc. of the need for change. If the company is in dire circumstances, it’s easy to be convincing about the burning platform. But trying to portray a coming disaster can be very difficult.
Thomas Duffy wrote:
great stuff
Bill McClure wrote:
Interesting and timely question. As the world gets smaller and the pace of change quickens, this will be a growing topic. Typically when a company gets to a place that they need to make a major change, they are either a company who has become complacent, or a company that has tried change, but never done it whole heartedly.
In either case, I believe starting at the beginning with a vision statement as well as a list of core values (what we are…as well as what we are not) is integral. Secondly, the strategy and related tactics are key. Strict timing in the short term with milestones along the way (success must be celebrated along the way to maintain momentum). Thirdly, top management buy in is critical, and at this level, I feel it is important to not wait too long if buy-in is not forthcoming. Fourth, prioritization is integral, as it is possible to paralyze a company by having too many initiatives. Fifth, be flexible but do something…plans will change, some initiatives will work out, others won’t; be prepared to change directions, but always do something (key information is gathered after an action, be it right or wrong).
Within all this, communication and unification of upper management are the glue that will hold this all together.
Just my initial thoughts, welcome for any feedback.
Bill
Jeremy Pooley wrote:
Leaders need to be smart about it.
Change takes as long as you want it to take if there is no market pressure to change any faster. If you choose the slow road you can take enough of your people enough of the way so that the fall out does not happen at the one time. Whether change could go faster or should go faster to extract greater shareholder value is a different question. No one cares about MAXIMISING shareholder value only extracting ENOUGH value to suit their capacity to deal with any people issues arising from it.
If change is driven by market circumstance, then it happens much faster and is absorbed and rationalised much faster by everyone ie there is alignment.
So what employees resent is the pace of change – when the reason for it is not well articulated or seen to be sound – and how the change is communicated and implemented. You can be very fast and bloody minded if you have to and still get employee support. The key thing is not to give employees the excuse not to participate in change. Change is a disciplined business where the real choice is a self-selection one: do I as an employee want to be a part of this, or not.
Paul Hughes wrote:
When helping a former employer with a major change in direction, I challenged the management team (I was perceived as an outsider) to split into two teams and argue the case for, and against, a major strategy shift. It was a 4 day exercise that included a review of our past 3 year’s performance, our challenges in maintaining market relevance, and a series of problem solving activities that were not specifically related to the business. In the end, “change ” won the battle and the team took ownership in delivering the new plan.
Mari Anne Snow wrote:
Change doesn’t happen to companies, it happens to the people in those companies. So the first rule is accept people must be persuaded if you want change to occur – you don’t have to convert everyone, but you need a majority if you want productive adoption. You can try and force it on people, but they will rebel (openly or subversively).
Developing a strategy that reflects the people involved helps. Having a well defined plan, making sure you communicate it effectively and listening to the people most impacted also helps. Maintaining flexibility so you can adjust as you learn how the change is perceived and what road blocks prevent adoption also helps. Finally measuring the results, learning from your mistakes and incorporating those learning into future change efforts makes things easier on everyone over the long term.
Change is going to occur whether we like it or not – can be exciting, exhilarating and a real opportunity to make things better if it’s done well. Or it can be a horror show and a major business disruption when it is not.
Bob Oedy wrote;
Fear of change is an obstacle companies need to overcome. Many non-union electrical contractors use out-dated practices to recruit help. They run expensive advertisements in the newspaper or online and spend a great deal of time interviewing and trying out candidates. We help these companies by alerting them to opportunities they are missing out on and helping them through the process of change. Once they become signatory we solve their problem by providing highly trained and motivated state-certified electricians within 24 hours. This frees up time for the employer to focus on more important aspects of their business such as estimating and bidding on new projects.
Susan Boucher wrote:
The characteristics of a strong PR campaign are the same things you need for successful change management: relevance to the audience, clear and consistent communication, repetition of key messages, timeliness, etc. Assuming the goal is change within an organization and employees are the audience, always remember to address the two things foremost in the employees’ minds: (1) Why is the company doing this? (2) What does it mean to me? At National Grid, we underwent numerous mergers, a downsizing, and sold half the company, all within a few years, and at the end, 85% of employees thought the company made the right decisions. Employees will adapt and accept change, if approached properly
Shahbaz Ali wrote:
Interesting question. Assuming CEO has the strategic agreement on this major change with the Board, ideally you would ensure that your management team is ready for that change. Depending on the company size, Managers do a face to face team or a one on one with employees. After this step, regular focus groups (e.g. meeting twice a week) can be formed where senior managers / line managers can explain why this change is important for the business and also address major concerns and Q&A. During this process 1st grade motivation is a very important instrument for managers to ensure that employee productivity increases and change management is taken positively. Unfortunately there is also a dark side to this, today’s downturn and economic situation has created a constant fear and uncertainty in employees and when you talk about change, the resulting reaction can be bad for the business. Traditional techniques such as notices, communication, and newsletters cannot address the challenges business will face. Using Interpersonal skills. entreprenuerial management team and managers will have to handle this with more hands-on interactive approaches such as focus groups, group social gatherings and social / personal communication methods
Karen Davey Winter wrote:
If anyone is interested, I have a training course/workshop called ‘Executing Change in the Organization’ that I deliver for organizations. It combines 4 groups affected by change – the Executive Leaders, Individual Contributors, Managers, and the Project Management team. Please let me know if you would like more information.
Thanks,
Karen
Robin Cook wrote:
First of all, clearly communicate the need for change to every level of the organization (preferably with data to back it up).
Next, there must be high level leadership driving the change & walking the talk. However, to be successful, the process must be bottom up. The process must involve as many people at as many levels of the organization as possible. Particular attention must be paid to identifying the “key influencers” in the organization – the informal leadership, usually people who do not have formal management or supervisory duties or titles, but who everyone looks up to/defers to. The process must involve as many of these people as possible if it’s to achieve the necessary buy-in to work.
I have yet to see an organization where the front line people didn’t know both the problems & the solutions. I’ve encountered very few in which this knowledge/wisdom filters its way up to the decision makers. For change to be successful, the process must effectively tap into this resource.
Thea Rasins wrote:
I will tell you about a change management method that should be in text books as “How to hurt your company”. An established utility company brought all their local employees together and announced the company was beginning a campaign to carry it into the future. Those employees who would step up and be leaders would drive the “busses” and those who didn’t would be “in the back of the bus”. They went on to announce that those that remained in the back would be terminated.
The company immediately began “offering” retirement to employees who were “too set in their ways” (had been with the company for over 15 years). Within two weeks 90% of the mentors and leaders announced their (forced) retirement and sad parties were held.
The moral dropped. The job security dissapeared. The go-to people for industry info were gone. Job performance dropped. Issues that had been taken care of before went to management to resolve. Attendance dropped. Employees began looking for jobs elsewhere.
The bus went on but it had a few flat tires.
Dick Lee wrote:
Any executive wrestling with change issues, particularly those brought on by need to reorganize to meet requirtements of doing business in a radically changed customer market, should get Dr. Ranjay Gulani’s (HBS) new book, “Reorganizing for Resilience.” It’s the best written so far about organizational implications of dealing with increasingly empowered customers, without a close second (IMHO).
John Nistler wrote:
In 1990, I introduced a lithographic technique called phase shift mask technology into the mainstream of semiconductor processing. This was a significant shift not only for the company I was working for, Advanced Micro Devices, but also for the industry as a whole. The infrastructure to support this shift in approaches did not exist and no one was using this technology in production environment. Now in 2010, there is not a single company in advanced electronics who do not use this technology approach.
I have been asked over the years how I was able to get Advanced Micro Devices, a “nuts and bolts” semiconductor industry (not known for advanced research) to actually embrace what seemed like such a far reaching technology advancement.
First was understanding the economics of the business and how the technology would positively impact that economics. Second, the problem it addressed and ROI related to this introduction. Third, was to understand who might have issues with the new technology, internally and externally, and to have a plan in place that would address those issues.
At all times, you must keep in mind that there are a lot of non-technical reasons why a good idea or technology is not always accepted. Most mistakes are made in relation to how you present the solution or who actually presents the solution. One example of this is how I introduced the idea to upper management.
I was unknown to the California management, but my Boss was not. He was well known internally and externally. So even though I did all of the work, I asked him to do the first presentation. Why? So that people listened to what was being said, not being concerned with who was saying it.
If you want your ideas, concepts or new technology to be accepted you need to keep in mind your audience. Who are you presenting to, what issues might they have, who in the audience may not want you to be successful for personal or economic reasons. Good luck and God bless in your endeavors.
Dick Stieglitz wrote:
Great article, Earl – several of useful points. Change has two parts that challenge the commitment of leaders: (1) letting go of the old which is difficult for successful companies and their leaders, and (2) embracing the new which is always difficult because the future opportunities are fuzzy at best. To get organizations to change requires attention to both parts – failure do either one can sink a change. That’s the main point of my book “Taming the Dragons of Change in Business.”
Posted by Gary Monroe wrote:
Good article. I’ve used Price Pritchett’s materiel for years. Excellent for acquisition integration and turnarounds. More geared toward the organizational behavior side of change management. His short books are also good for wage employees. However, with any program one chooses, execution and leadership from the top makes the difference. Honest communication and sincere listening develops both trust and commitment to change.
Ernie Sanders wrote:
Dr. Smith,
To compound the issue the organization tends to change leadership during the midst of the change program due to frustration with the speed of change or lack of change. Of course, this derails the prior program as the new leader has different visions, leadership style and expectations for success. Now to answer your question: How do you think they are best met? Organization must have clear quantifiable measurements and target dates to evaluate the progression and effectiveness of change. Risk mitigation must be in place to mitigate activities or hurdles, which will cause a deviation to the corporate strategy. The activities must have a ROI, which can be tracked and measured at key intervals by which the organization can quickly regroup and change direction, yet at the same time stay on path to the desired outcome. Accountability is key attribute from the top down. A change in leadership should not change the desired outcome or slow down the process. Each individual from the top down to the exuectioner of the program has to be evaluated and measured on his or her ability to make change happen.
Ernie, Thanks for the comment. My experience has been similar. As the pace of change accelerates, the pace of managing change has to as well. Most often it does not keep up. I am sure that you have seen situations where, by the time the response to change has been implemented, it is obsolete. Another related problem is the tendency of senior management to adhere to out-dated visions of the organization and the world it faces. One example of that is senior management still wedded to the hierarchical vision of an organization as the company moves to a flatter, post-modernist modus operendi. These are very difficult challenges. How do you think they are best met? Dr. Smith
Ernie Sanders wrote:
Dr. Smith, I like your article and agree that there is a fundamental and somewhat meticulous process for dealing with change. The biggest issue I see in corporate America in my last 20 years of experience is the pace in which the corporation implements the change. The CXOs realize there is a problem, rally the groups, go through the motions and then 8-12 months later put the gas to the pedal after doing the analysis and investigation to what is required to move forward; by this time, the train has left the station and the environment, economy and world has changed. The organization finds itself implementing change to find that they are late and not reaping the benefits as planned. I think a key component in the whole process of change is implementing throughout the discovery and making strides in organizational change along the way and not waiting until all answers have been found. An organization has to be ahead of the parade if they want to be successful.