Change: Four Questions and a Conversation

This article is the thirty-seventh in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Making any kind of a change increases the chances for misunderstanding, mistrust, and conflict.

Those become magnified when changes are announced without an opportunity for clarification and discussion.

If you are a manager or adviser and want to get things started in the best way possible, here is a framework to use. It's intentionally simple.

Here's why:

When you are introducing something new, simplicity helps people comprehend faster and adjust more accurately. Making something complex or obtuse causes confusion which leads to frustration--and that's the last thing you want if you are looking for understanding, commitment and action.

Why these four questions?

I was sitting in a kick-off meeting of a new initiative. As people asked questions, I jotted them down. After synthesizing the actual questions, they pretty much fell into these four headings.

Start off answering the four over-arching questions that need to be answered. That will provide enough concrete information to generate thought.( It will also force you to get clearer about your wants). Then kick back and invite questions and conversation.

Note: It's the conversation, not the speech, that builds commitment and relationship.

How is your organization doing when it comes to answering these?

Comments

[Karin H.]

Hi Steve

Simplicity ;-) My motto!
Reading through your post I was strongly reminded of the acronym SUCCESs from the Heath brothers in their great book: Made to Stick
All messages - including those to 'announce' changes - should be/contain:
Simple
Unexpected
Concrete
Credible
Emotional
Story
in order to stick. I don't think it's different for arranging the question session and getting into that conversation. Because if you follow those 'rules' you'll receive engagement, commitment and action sooner and better IMHO

Karin H. (Keep It Simple Sweetheart, specially in business)

[robert edward cenek]

Steve: some good information here. i would only add that often folks want to know the answer to the question: "what's in it for me?"

robert edward cenek
Cenek Report
www.cenekreport.com

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Bob,

That's a slam dunk.

While jotting down the questions I was actually thinking about the WIIFM, since none of us is going to do anything until it's answered satisfactorily. I think it deserves it's own post and now you've encouraged--and convinced me.

[Jim Stroup]

Steve,

This is so good. Anticipate the questions that trouble your listeners - both professionally and personally - and address them up front. Then, "invite questions and conversation" - what's more, "kick back" while you're doing it. You'll be able to because the questions will be less to motive and practicality, and more to how everyone can collaborate on moving the change along.

[Steve Roesler]

Karin, I chuckled when I saw your reference to the Heath brothers.

I had used the "sticky" word in the original post and then changed it. Not sure why. But if there is anyplace where "sticky" is important, it's when we try to work with people on the importance of changes and doing things differently.

[Steve Roesler]

Well, Jim, that's the hope: that things will flow "less to motive and practicality, and more to how everyone can collaborate on moving the change along."

How often do we see a hard sell when all that is needed is an honest rationale followed by "how can we make this happen?"

[Michael Lee Stallard]

Steve, These are a hlpful set of questions. I would add, if the anticipated change is important to the people you lead and they are involved in executing the decision, inform them and ask for their opinions before making a final decision. Not to get buy-in though. It shows them you respect their opinions and ideas and consider them before making decisions. This gives them a voice and meets the universal human needs for respect, recognition and belonging. If you don't, you run the risk of getting less than their best efforts when it's time to execute.

[Steve Roesler]

Michael,

Indeed, one would hope that there would be enough sensibility and respect to discuss the pending changes before the fact rather than leaping out with a "Gotcha!"

If that were the norm, we probably wouldn't be writing about it here or doing what we do for a living. There's still a long way to go when it comes to making transitions and changes in ways that satisfy the needs of all of the constituencies involved.

Thanks for stopping by and adding to the conversation.

[Andrew]

Inviting thought and conversations around the four questions is a very helpful idea. At the same time I am uneasy about the seductive appeal of 'simple' methods in organisational change. (Perhaps unreasonably, since I think my discomfort is intuitive, not logical.)

It's not that I think methods shouldn't be simple, or that some changes can't be simple, or shouldn't be expressed in simple terms. However, too often I think managers - wary of the time and effort needed - are too quickly drawn to simple models and methods of 'managing' change in contexts where there is little agreement or certainty, and change is partially out of their control.

Of course we would all like to control or plan the future to our own satisfaction - and yet in some contexts if we don't allow for and acknowledge the unexpected and unknowable, I think we'll find that some of the time the 'simple' may end up - albeit years later - as irrelevant or futile.

I'm also struck by the apparent starting point - the man saying 'I want change'. There is an unavoidable part of change that occurs before that happens (and may be unnoticed even to those involved). In other words, change is always already emerging when that statement pops up in an organisation. It's change that admits of no simple planning process, and yet it occurs all the time in organisations, at least to the extent that they are aware, adaptive and internally diverse. Paying some attention to these latter qualities is at least as important as providing tools for planning and 'buy-in'.

[Steve Roesler]

Andrew,

You say "too often I think managers - wary of the time and effort needed - are too quickly drawn to simple models and methods of 'managing' change in contexts where there is little agreement".

My experience parallels yours here. Looking for quick solutions to long-term processes isn't the way to go (although it is all-too-common). This post was designed to prompt people who are initiating a change to simply understand some of the questions that we all bring to the table at the outset.

Indeed, Andrew, there are many things happening as a lead-in to an "announcement" or initiative. And many people can see it or, at some level, feel it. Yet strangely enough, the energy doesn't move toward critical mass until someone in authority proclaims, "We will ________."

What has your experience been with that aspect, Andrew? (And thanks for weighing in).

[Steve Bannister]

Love the straight-forward questions!

As with getting anything done, it's all about the questions we ask. I also thought that the Heath's book was a great read. Simplicity is definitely an important factor in getting things done.

Thanks for the post.

Steve

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Steve, and thanks for weighing in.

Indeed, it's all about the questions--especially if they lead to answers :-)

Are we going to see you at the Blogger Social in April?

[Chris Rodgers]

Hi Steve,

Your final note, that "It's the conversation, not the speech, that builds commitment and relationship", is spot on. To take this seriously, though, managers need to reframe their understanding of leadership communication. In particular, they need to move beyond the conventional view of this as a formal, message-passing task - 'getting the right facts to the right people at the right time'.

Instead, they need to see the primary purpose of leadership communication as one of joint sensemaking and relationship building. And this requires them to actively engage with the everyday conversations and interactions through which people make sense of what's going on and decide how they are going to act. They can do this directly, of course, by taking (and creating) opportunities to talk 'informally' with their staff in 'local' (one-to-one and small group) conversations. More particularly, though, it means them tapping into the informal conversational networks through which influence is exerted between peers and across levels on a continuous basis.

If, as a result of this ongoing local sensemaking, people coalesce around themes that reflect the official line, then the desired outcomes are likely to be achieved. If not, then it will be the informally constructed meaning that will hold sway and determine the actual outcomes that emerge.