Garrett Gitchell
President
Vision to Work, Inc.
Weaving the Change Management Web Building links across the organization to provide consistency and clarity for the implementation of business strategy
© 2009 Vision to Work, Inc.
www. vision to work.com
Weaving the Change Management Web
Executive overview High-level Change Management Change Management at the Enterprise corporate strategic level, whole organization change, requires a web of connections, communication and interaction. A spider web in nature has structural strength and acute sensitivity at the level of a single thread. The change management web weaved at the highest level of the organization can have the same quick response and foundational support. Designed well this web can be repeatable for future change. This paper highlights the design, construction and the roles for an internal change entity, which serves as the center of the Change Management Web.
The Idea
the change. Action and reaction work more like a web than a pyramid. See Figure 1 for an illustration of the Change Management Web. Corporate strategy lies at the center of every organization (not at the top). Think of that as the first circle of the web. Strategy plays out in the form of projects, programs, initiatives and transformation. Each successive circle on the web represents those levels. The lines providing specific strength across the web are the functional units of the organization. Strands that branch out to latch onto other areas for a bigger, stronger web represent external entities/stakeholders (partners, the business community, the supply chain, peer organizations). The Change Catalyst Group (CCG) is the change management entity that spans all of the threads. It operates separate from the performance, career and internal political measures of the organization. This web breaks up unnecessary vertical connections (at a functional level these are helpful), creates a path for projects, programs and initiatives, ties change to corporate strategy and places resources at the right time and place. Some things to consider and possibly ponder before reading further-
Figure 1 – Change Management Weblayering strategy and change Transformational change, which every organization will go through at some point in their history, involves every person and every task. Each person and each task must somehow have a quick avenue to connect to
This is not a staff function at the corporate level. To treat it as such will instantly defeat the purpose of ungluing hierarchical connections. This begs the question, "Won't this be a threat to strategy groups and corporate leadership?" It is entirely possible with the wrong people in the change roles. It will be quite the contrary with the right people in those roles (consultative experts on change). This entity guides strategy; it does not create or "own" it (other than as champions of the business objectives). Where does this entity report then? Hold your hats. It does not report to anyone in particular. As soon as the change agents are required to report to an individual, change management moves back to business as usual
Weaving the Change Management Web
which defeats the purpose of this guiding entity. Formal reporting is included in the post measurement of initiatives based on accomplishment of business objectives, speed and quality; all of which rely on solid change management skills. The ability to weave results from people is the measure of a change agent's performance. This entity operates much like an external consulting group (in fact it can exist with only a few internal roles) moving and adapting to need. The only role (roles are included later) that may truly need a reporting structure is the VP of Change. As with a high-level senior consultant their client (the reporting structure internally) is the CEO ultimately and SVP's by initiative.
from the initial vision of the end state. Stakeholders who will be the farthest out on the timeline are the first focus for collaboration. Incorporating their expertise, cautions and risk assessment (informal and personal) into the description plants a seed for collaboration. That planted seed can be helpful for future participation. Considerations in the design process: • • • •
External/Internal balance Performance Relation to project management How will the CCG be leveraged
External/Internal Balance
The Design Creating what we will call the Change Catalyst Group (CCG) is itself a change initiative An excellent opportunity exists to educate, demonstrate and facilitate change. Few organizations have a change component operating at the highest levels (first or second horizontal). Adding the CCG has the potential to transform the way individuals interact in pursuit of business goals. Getting to its creation can be a perfect model for future transformations/initiatives; its structure an example of the Organizational Web. Designing the CCG as with an individual change initiative starts with the creation of an end state description(s). The end state being the change in place and “culturized”, assimilated, adopted or integrated depending on the type of change. Getting to this description involves gathering the input of the stakeholders who will participate along the path to change. It is powerful and a valuable investment at this stage in the design process to work backward
An external resource will be like the spider in the web- they can move freely from connection to connection. They are also in tune to the cascading, reverberating effect of even a small change on the web. Their gauge is the effect on the business goals of the change. An internal change agent will typically have expertise in engaging individuals and groups to accomplish tasks. They can help to speed the fulfillment of those tasks with their knowledge of cultural impediments and obstacles. Because there is more need for sheparding task than predicting risk and reaction in terms of work hours, the ratio of two internal to one external change agent is a good start. There may be extra advantage gained though in using external resources for some of the task implementation. That will depend on the culture and receptivity (or the need to create awareness) of the organization.
Performance This is a crucial area in helping the CCG to operate with autonomy and influence. There is
Weaving the Change Management Web
a trend in the last few years to create internal leadership roles for change management without the structure we are suggesting. Most of these roles are at the Director level (too low in the organization- we will discuss later in the paper) while a few are VP’s- which is our recommendation. A hidden obstacle to change is the way the organization rewards its members. Performance programs tend to weigh heavily on subjective analysis by management. This can result in actions by employees directed less to the accomplishment of business goals and more toward recognition by their direct supervisors. Creating a performance system for the CCG separate and distinct from the typical functional grading has the potential to address this hidden wall and, designed well be a replacement or augmentation to the current system. This is the "report to no one" solution to the hierarchical structure of most organizations.
Relation to project management
This is an important call to make in the design process of a change entity because it will signal leaderships' definition of the two roles. The two roles Change Agent and Project Manager have direct and often intense connection to the work of individuals and the connection/context of that work. To break the status quo typical of a PMO sends a supportive message that people are crucial to the organizations success. This is a distinct and innovative cultural change; a powerful catalyst toward collaboration.
How will the CCG be leveraged The CCG provides resources for grand horizontal initiatives but the design will take into consideration functional change. Resources will then be available for both horizontal and vertical change. It does not work in the other direction - using functional resources for transformational change as many organizations have learned.
This area may be the one that turns the status quo upside down. It is important to imagine the way projects (then programs then initiatives) could work in the organization and then look at the current approach. Is there a match of structure and success?
Innovative organizations that are willing to stretch the role of the CCG can improve their performance system, develop employees, build new cross functional operational connections and create a horizontal and vertical feedback loop that does not typically exist.
If not our suggestion is to flip the typical structure where PMO’s (project management office/organizations) run all projects either functionally or corporately to one where the CCG acts as an umbrella and the PMO works on specific project tracks. This is a paper in itself considering the ongoing debate about the difference between project management and organizational change management.
The Construction
We feel project managers should have a chance to excel within their skill set. Dusting the PMO with change management distracts the PM’s (Project Managers) and dilutes the influence and effect of the change agents.
The design of the CCG addresses cultural and behavioral change while the construction gives structure. Keeping in mind the transformational nature of this entity, areas to address are connections to the PMO (if one exists), Human Resources and Internal Communications. The leaders and stakeholders in these verticals will inevitably feel threatened by a CCG.
Weaving the Change Management Web
PMO The implementation of this entity will be much simpler if a PMO does not yet exist. There is ongoing argument, discussion and passion around the roles of Project and Change Management. Our position is that they are equally necessary. Ideally they are partners at all levels, strategic to task. If the design addressed differences, perceptions and perspective and then created languaging for clarity the PMO and CCG could be equal entities existing high in the organization. If that dialogue and the resulting new structure is not possible, we recommend at least separating the two for any kind of reporting structure. A common arrangement is to have the change agents sit within the PMO (and this is typically a functional arrangement replicated throughout the organization). This dilutes addressing change and distracts the project managers from a clean task oriented approach. One arrangement is one of client and consultant. The PMO is a client to the change entity while the CCG provides guidance, overall planning/strategy and horizontal advantage in a consultative role. Our recommendation though- the ultimate innovation - put the PMO under the umbrella of the CCG. It is easy to spin projects out of a change entity and next to impossible to add change management to the PMO. Yes, this is usually how organizations are structured. We question the effectiveness of this arrangement from both the people and business perspectives.
Human Resources The CCG is yet another outside influence on HR and structuring the entity in the way we suggest will necessitate behavioral and
cultural change, especially if development of employees is included in the design. If HR business partners are situated functionally/vertically throughout the organization this is a strong shift. If corporate HR is strong and respected by shareholders, the horizontal nature of the CCG can be a powerful addition. The design must create a definition and purpose for HR in relation to change. That end state may be much different from what is actually happening day to day within the organization. When the CCG is the umbrella, projects become part of the change process. HR now has a strategic voice with a people focus and specific targets (projects) as opportunity for HR's role in organizational development (OD). Rather than standing out as a separate transactional entity HR now becomes an integral piece for the organizations growth (change).
Internal Communications Communication for change and the communication required for the Internal Communications (IC) function are often and usually, different. The vehicles and medium for exchange are the same (with different levels of usage and need). A mistake in design and structure is to see the Internal Communications group as the conduit for change communications. Agreements and internal contracts, formal or informal, included in the design process prevent overlapping and conflicting messages to stakeholders.
Weaving the Change Management Web
The Roles Design will determine how many of these roles will be needed. The key is to have enough of the roles placed appropriately, to facilitate behavioral change tied to business objectives. The mix of internal and external will depend on many of the factors mentioned in this paper along with the ability to recruit internal change agents (most choose to be external), the willingness to budget for outside resources and whether change is happening organization wide or functionally. • • • • •
Internal VP External high level change consultant Director level internal change agent PMO senior representation Supporting roles- junior to mid change agents, the PMO, communications, training
Internal VP It is important that the top role for change is not a Director. One of the objectives in creating the CCG is to elevate the role and importance of change. A VP title will begin that process. The transition to the creation of this role can happen with the placement of the CCG during an ongoing transformational initiative. The owner of the change will gain trust with stakeholders that will be valuable later in their new role. This is not an essential position. An external consultant contracted by the CEO or the first level horizontal, can accomplish the work. Any lower in hierarchy (including only one of those on the first horizontal as the
owner) pushes the importance of change down in the organization. While this might work at a functional level, it is not effective for horizontal/transformational change as it leaves out a row of those ultimately responsible for results.
External High-Level Change Consultant The external change consultant is the pivot point for the CCG. They operate much like the gravity from a planet that pushes the spaceship on with no extra expenditure of fuel. This role provides a conduit between people and business objectives with no internal obstacles. As juxtaposition, imagine this role wrapped up into the responsibilities of the Internal VP. Fuel is used. Obstacles are present thanks to performance measures. This is an essential position. High-level change agents know how to guide clients to clear end state descriptions, they ask the right questions from an impartial perspective, intuitively see risks from people/structure/process and are a valuable go to for leadership credibility tied to change.
Director level internal change agent All change has an implementation process, part people oriented part project based. The direct responsibility for this will fall at the director level. In old style parlance, they are the champions. In ours, they are the project manager. An interesting design option is to have this role head the organizations PMO. Yet this is not an essential role. The implementation can happen in many forms and be just as effective with rotating roles. If development of managers is a plus in the design, rotating is advantageous.
Weaving the Change Management Web
PMO senior representation If the PMO is located within functions, it is advantageous to rotate members into leadership roles working on contract with the CCG. If the PMO is at a higher level in the organization and/or is a corporate entity then its senior leader fills this role (or the direct report for development). This is an essential role.
Supporting roles These roles participate and have direct responsibility for, implementation and the roll-out/project process. That process includes project work, project and change communications, potentially training, an informal thread of information exchange and cross-functional collaboration in the middle of the organization. The number of roles depends on the scope of the change as well as where that change falls in the functional versus horizontal continuum. At a minimum there is a role for communications, a PM and an internal and/or external change agent. Keep in mind that change is different from day to day operations. Overlapping resources, using employees as part of the change team, must have a change focus. As an example, an internal communications stakeholder will not automatically be effective in a change communications role at least for the written content.
The End State An organization with a high-level change entity made up of internal and external resources has the ability to have the process of
change follow a path to the end state that can be repeated. A level of trust and confidence in leadership can replace an environment of resistance to change. In its most innovative form the CCG change entity can help to facilitate development for HR, the people and business aspects of change and communications that tie to business objectives and stakeholder motivation. Just as a touch on a single thread of a spider web sends a signal, so does the CCG function as a conduit for the ideas, energy and motivation of employees. Organizations that choose to address change in this way will be many steps ahead of their competitors.
Weaving the Change Management Web
About Vision to Work Vision to Work, Inc. is a management consulting firm specializing in the design of Change Management entities, horizontal implementation of change and human capital development. Founded in 2000 by Garrett Gitchell, we work with our clients to leverage change initiatives, develop client internal capability and improve the efficiency of operations. We are unique in our approach to change because we work at a high level in the organization and weave the change process into the culture. For the executive that means confidence that strategy has a path for implementation and for the individual stakeholder it means a connection between their work and the goals of the organization. The result is the ability to address present efficiency and mold capacity for current and future change.
For more insight: www.visiontowork.com www.horizontalchange.com ggitchell@visiontowork.com