Change: A Genuine Change Question For You

Today's article is the eleventh in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Do you sometimes wonder what's going on under the surface or behind the scenes when you expect one thing but receive another?

Change: Reflection, Discernment, and Wisdom was yesterday's post. It was prompted by previous comments and touched upon the importance of personal change--as well as how organizations sometimes dabble "at" vs. "attend to" it as a foundation for professional growth and future change.

I had expected this to trigger a number of comments. It didn't, although those offered up by Karin H. and  Tom Haskins sure added to the depth and breadth of learning.

If I were working with a group and something unexpected happened--say, an unusual silence--I'd simply ask what was going on, if anything. After all, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Yet I'm curious. Do you think people--(would you?)--prefer to talk about the procedural and tasky parts of Change and leave the deeper, "personal change" part of it  alone?

Help me out with this one? What do you think?

Here are links to the individual articles, to date. I hope you gain something helpful that will cause you to think about some aspect of change in a new way:

Real-Life Change: Offer More Time, Less Judgment

Making Changes, Leading Changes, and Changing Change

How Do People Process Change?

Change: You're Here, They're There, Now What?

Change: Being At The Same Place At The Same Time 

Change and Leadership: When Participation Needs Direction

Change: When The People Demand "It" Now!

Change: "Nah, I'd Rather Die. Really."

Change: It Happens In The Middle

Change: Business Goal or People Process?

Change: Reflection, Discernment, and Wisdom 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: Reflection, Discernment, and Wisdom

Today's article is the tenth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Yeah, I know. Change is about getting something done differently. I think the idea is to do "it" better, too. And maybe keep it that way...or even help it become mo' better.

So how do you do that without understanding what got you there and how it happened?

More importantly, how do you do that without understanding your own part in the process?

What's that I hear? "Oh, no, Steve, you are about to lay a self-awareness thing on our business model. We have stuff to do. You don't understand business."

Actually I do understand, which is why I know what some of you are thinking (if you are still here).

For those of you who have chosen to hang in, here's the point:

You Better Know You--It's the Only Thing You Can Change

Check out Peter Vajda's well thought-out comment in response to the give and take with Wally Bock  on Change: It Happens in the Middle . I always pay attention to anyone who quotes Einstein and Pogo in the same thought.

In my post I said:

"It's become more fashionable in many companies to explore the psychological and sociological underpinnings of leadership and change vs. the skills managers need to help achieve the results for which they are responsible."

Which would lead one to believe I value skill-building more than understanding what's behind the Wizard's curtain.

Au contraire.

Without a healthy approach to "Why and How?" as well as "What and When?" , we gain nothing other than a tick mark next to the great to-do list of life. In a business world that values repetitive systems, there is a paradox:

In order to create systems that work, we have to create people who understand how they worked to make it happen.

That requires reflection, awareness, and the ensuing wisdom that emerges from discerning one's part in the process, relational connections, and even decisions about one's real capabilities and desires for future assignments and roles.

Why?

Upon reflection, you will discover that the only thing really changeable was yourself. If others seemed to change, it was in response to yours--and vice-versa.

Changing the Right Things

Doing the right thing requires a time investment--the time needed to discuss and reflect upon what "the right thing" happens to be. We in the business community enjoy waving the banner of "Speed" as the answer to many challenges. Speed, then, has become a "legitimate" excuse for "not being able to" spend more time on an issue. None of us would walk into a fine restaurant tonight and ask for a nice September 2007 Cabernet. But we will demand million dollar solutions while drinking an actual bottle of the good stuff over dinner.

A similar dynamic takes place in much that is being done in the area of psychological/sociological interventions in business. (I outlined these in my conversation with Peter).

See if any of these ring true for you or your company:

1. Companies are dabbling with pop-psych "concepts du jour".

2. These are often "packages" that contain elements of truth that cause people to go "ooh" and "aah" but are not led by well-qualified people who are themselves highly aware of the real meaning of the content or its application in an organizational context.

3. Companies are more often than not now oriented toward "events" vs. long-term, deliberate integration of concepts pertaining to growth. Frequently, good things are begun but then end up with a check mark next to the title and it's "on to the next big thing."

4. For-profit organizations survive and thrive in proportion to their profitability. The numbers are, in fact, everything. They have to be in order to survive, grow, and employee people. The bigger issue, as I see it, is this:  "The numbers just might be exponentially better if you began looking at the deeper issues in life that impact one's total ability to lead, follow, and "perform".

The Good News

Those leaders who I see being highly effective would be, by anyone's standards, very self-aware. When they are about to make changes they are keenly in tune with the human condition, their own strengths and weaknesses, and don't have much trouble knowing when to ask for help. What I've discovered that they don't have is the budget or time to create a "growth experience" prior to an initiative. Instead, they lead people very deliberately down a well-defined path that allows for pausing at certain intervals and asking, "What are we learning from this?" The word "learning" extends into the personal realm as well as systems and processes.

In a recent phone call with a VP who has worked under a new CEO for the past 6 months, he commented: "I've never worked so hard and learned so much about business and life as I have since _____took over. Everything he does causes me to stop and reflect."

Two thoughts for today:

"What are you doing differently that causes people to stop and reflect?"

"What are you reflecting upon that causes you to do something differently?"

Reflection, Discernment, Wisdom.

If you want to do the right things.

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: Business Goal or People Process?

Today's article is the ninth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Have you ever noticed how hard it is for people to talk about Change without getting into a heated debate about what's most important, "The goal" or "The people?"

I think the answer is "Yes".

It's a real Chicken or Egg argument. Textbook Task vs. Process. We can see it in this way:

I used to believe the real question was, "Which axis requires the most concentrated attention at a given moment?" But I now think that's wrong. Everyone has to stay focused on the outcome as well as how effectively they're getting to it.

The challenge rests with different, inherent learning styles.

Some of us really prefer to do, then reflect and learn (maybe).

Some of us prefer to reflect on what we're about to do, then do it (hopefully).

You can see why it's so important for managers to be really involved during any change initiative. They have to figure out how and when to do, teach, reflect, and keep the cycle going.

Good managers do this all the time.

In a major change, they become Management Maestros: orchestra conductors who take the familiar music off of the stand and hand out a totally new arrangement.That means that everyone is going to have to learn something new.

So it is with change.

Understanding the process means understanding how people learn. If you're a goal-oriented, task-driven leader, you can't separate--or diminish--intentional growth & development. It's part of the process of success.

What has your experience been with an emphasis--or over-emphasis--of one versus the other?

Part 10 will look closer at learning and it's place in change, management, and organization development.

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: It Happens In the Middle

Today's article is the eighth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

When something new is introduced, where do we put the focus of our time, energy, and attention?

Let's be honest now. Look in the business section of your local bookstore or on amazon.com. If you knew nothing about organizations, you'd be convinced that successful change comes from two places:

1. A larger-than-life visionary CEO who communicates with the stickiness of Velcro and whose leadership style combines the best of Gandhi and Patton.

2. Employees who, while initially resisting changes, are converted to true believers through a mandatory and systematic process of neutralization, communication, and education.

Where It Really Happens (Or Not)

Every forthcoming CEO will tell you that nothing is going to change without engaged managers managing effectively. Employees may love the CEO and  believe that the vision or project makes sense. But employees work for their bosses. Every legitimate survey I've ever seen--as well as professional observation--shows that one's immediate boss is the determining factor when it comes to performance.

What Does This Really Mean To Us?

It means re-thinking the time, energy, direction, and education invested in the managers who will determine the success or failure of the change initiative. Quite frankly, my own experience has been that middle managers have been increasingly ignored over the past twenty years. (Wally Bock frequently writes knowledgeably about this as a result of his years of experience helping managers). Training money that had been spent developing supervisors and managers has been shifted to grander and more esoteric activities that have much less to do with business results. It's become more fashionable in many companies to explore the psychological and sociological underpinnings of leadership and change vs. the skills managers need to help achieve the results for which they are responsible. 

The leader, employees, and managers each have important roles to play. I'm not discounting any one of those. But here is a legitimate question to ask when "Change" looms on the horizon:

How are you going to allot time, money, and training to make sure that the right people get the right amount of support consistent with their influence on success?

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: Nah, I'd Rather Die. Really.

Today's article is the seventh in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Well, not me. Nor Joe Raasch.

But Joe reminded me of the Change or Die article published in Fast Company. The Dean and CEO of Johns Hopkins University medical school related that after surviving a heart attack, heart bypass patients could avoid the return of pain as well as arrest the course of the disease before it kills them--simply by switching to healthier lifestyles.

I'm in!

According to the Dean, 90% of the bypass patients opt out. That's right. The good Dean allowed that..."Even though they know they have a very bad disease and they know they should change their lifestyle, for whatever reason, they can't."

Or maybe they just won't.

How could that be?!

You Might Have Bypassed It Once, Doc, But You Better Speak to My Heart

It turns out that factual information simply isn't enough to bring about a life-saving lifestyle change.

The same holds true for organizations. You can lay out all of the facts, watch heads nod in sincere agreement, hear someone say, "Hey, we should get right on that!", and things continue as usual. In business we get paid to be "business-like." That means being rational and letting the numbers speak for themselves. Everyone should get it.

Well, they do. But the numbers don't touch the heart in a way that prompts desire. It's kind of like going out on a date, looking into the other person's eyes and saying, "You are, without a doubt, 90% better than the last 8 dates I've had. I think that even tonight's experience could be more exciting by 50% if we could see each other 4 more times. I have 3 nights open this month and one next month. So that can work. I'm sure you can see the potential and added value of multiple dates, going forward."

OK, so you've tried that one, too. That means we have lots of time on our hands to read the rest of this.

Taking People to Higher Ground

Fear is a short term motivator. Even fear based on facts.

"If you don't bump up the sales figures 5% by next quarter, you're fired." OK, I'll work hard for the next quarter. Then she'll get off my back.

But what if it goes like this:

"We've worked to build a good reputation in this industry. Your sales group has been a big part of that. You've managed them through tough times and some very successful ones. But now our closest competitor has eaten into our market share and taken away about 2%. Since revenues and profit drive our ability to keep employment here stable, your group plays an even bigger role in the lives of our workforce than you may have realized. We have to bump up the sales figures 5% by next quarter and that isn't negotiable. So let's talk about how you can do that and what kind of support you'll need."

Change is about performing differently in the future.

So here's one way to think about communicating change:

Facts are an existing state of being (present) and speak to the mind.

Contextual changes are about what one can become and contribute (future), and speak to the heart.

Do you want to emphasize the present or influence the future?

Don't bypass the necessary facts. Just make sure you have coronary communication.

What are you and your organization doing now to make that happen?

photo source: www.pixelandlight.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change Series Resumes October 22

Thank you all again for your emails and good wishes.

The change process here at the All Things Workplace homefront continues as Barb rehabs the new knee. We had no idea how many changes in routine would be required and how much they would impact the normal scheduling of things. I had expected to have a week or so of downtime here before getting back to the daily articles and posts. But juggling visiting nurses and physical therapists (they aren't too heavy:-) and other commitments has proven challenging (but not overwhelming). Most of all, we're thankful for a continuing recovery.

Now that there seems to be a bit more predictability, I hope you'll re-join me on Monday, October 22, to move ahead together with the series on Change.

With thanks,

Steve

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change and Leadership: When Participation Needs Direction

Today's article is the fifth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Note: Sincere thanks to all of you who commented, e-mailed, and telephoned to wish my wife, Barbara, a speedy recovery. We are thankful that she is making progress and are deeply appreciative of the prayers and thoughts on her behalf.

Leading Change: When People Don't Know What They Don't Know

Western culture likes to wave the "total participation" flag when it comes to business decisions and implementation. I've spent time in this series discussing the importance of involvement and erring on the side of inclusion. The assumption, though, is that people have some degree of willingness and ability to do what needs to be done to make the desired change.

But what happens if people are unwilling, unable, or both?

Lee Thayer highlighted this with his comments on Change: Being At The Same Place At The Same Time. He uses the example of General George S. Patton who, while never accused of being warm, fuzzy, and participative, was successful by anyone's standards when it came to quickly making changes in the worst of circumstances. And Lee points out that the attrition rate in Patton's armies was the lowest despite the greatest level of exposure.

The issue was this: The average soldier may not have known what to do in an overwhelming situation and even if he did, the consequences might create a sense of hesitation due to uncertainty or fear. Patton did know what to do and how to do it. And he knew how to explain the benefits and consequences of action vs. inaction (if needed).

Quickly assessing willingness and ability--then leading a myriad of changes and changes-within-changes accordingly--can be seen in a study of his actions.

What happens when you do a quick assessment of your "change" and realize: "I'm not seeing a groundswell of support or the ability to get there even if there were support!"

What To Do

In the absence of either or both of those factors, effective leaders become directive: They tell people what to do, show them how to do it, bring them along the learning curve, and don't back off until the level of performance required can be achieved without close leadership. To do anything less would be to treat people badly. Think about it: If you have to do something but don't understand why or how, aren't you looking for someone to step in and offer the necessary context, structure, and teaching?

This also assumes that the necessary level of willingness and ability can be reached. If it can't, some people will have to opt out or be asked to leave based on one or both factors. Why?

1. Performance can't be achieved

2. People who are unwilling are toxic to the effort. If they are allowed to stay they will be the ones who set the standard. And the standard will be one of "status quo" or "lowest common denominator", not "let's accomplish all that we can."

3. People who are unable--even with training and education--need to find a new place where they can excel. It's not a matter of what they have contributed in the past. It's what they will be able to achieve for themselves and an employer in the future. There is every reason to help people in this category with the transition as well as sincerely celebrating their contributions.

The Diagnostic Leader

Really effective leaders are also really effective diagnosticians. They understand what they want to improve and then diagnose the willingness and abilities of those who are critical to success. As a result, they operate with the right mix of direction and participation and know when to shift back and forth.

I've said this before but it's worth repeating: Prognosis without diagnosis is malpractice.

Don't tell a perfectly conscious patient where it hurts.

And don't ask an unconscious patient to participate as a full partner in the treatment.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Real Life Change: Be Back Shortly

My wife, Barbara, had knee replacement surgery on Monday, October 1. (She is no longer speaking fondly of her field hockey days).

The surgery was successful. However, the combination of medications designed to help alleviate pain and make the recovery more comfortable actually caused an extreme reaction. It has taken a day and a half to stabilize that. As you can imagine, my attention has been focused on Barb and the situation.

The "Change" series will continue shortly. If you've left a comment, please forgive the delay in responding. 

Steve Roesler

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.