It looks like nothing was found at this location. Maybe try a search or browse one of our posts below.

Introducing a new way to do a job to experts in how it’s done now is hard.

The six dimensions of business function optimization can tell us  we need to find new and better ways to do a particular job. But, as a species, we struggle with doing something in a different way, using different tools, at least at the beginning. This struggle regularly kills business change projects, and study after study points out that paying insufficient attention to Business Change Management is one of  the top one or two reasons that a project may fail.

This isn’t new. I am guessing that some Babylonian construction engineer ran into problems with the team when he introduced them to a better way to build a ziggurat.

And, the “Remote First” approach to Project work has made Change management much, much harder.

Let’s start with trust, which is necessary for change management. It takes some different tools and skills to engage in trusted conversations in a remote meeting, and it isn’t a given.

Years ago, one colleague told me that he felt that needed to be in the same room as somebody to absorb their “pheromones” to help build trust. I am not sure those would be the words that I would choose, but it describes what some people might be feeling.

Second, the tools themselves are different for collaboration. There is a tremendous amount of innovation in collaborative tools, but with this innovation we need to do “Meta Training” on the use of new tools that help enable distributed collaboration. For example, instead of gathering around a white board, we may use a tool like Linq to map out a business process.  But, we will jointly need to invest the time to learn how to best use it so it feels as natural as drawing on a whiteboard. Even if we can do much more than we could have with the whiteboard, unless using it is intuitive we won’t get there.  Frustration with the collaboration tools could nudge us into the change resistance swamp right here at the beginning of the conversation.

So what else is to be done?  There are a lot of schools of thought on this, but I think we can get to a few takeaways that can lead to some quick improvements.

  • Use the right communication tool for the job. For critical conversations, Face to Face conversations are better than Video meetings. Video conversations are better than chat or email. And, by the way, insist that all parties keep their cameras on. Otherwise it isn’t a video meeting! Choose video because text messages with emojis may not help you get the alignment that you are craving. The overriding rule is that the most immediate and personal tool for a critical conversation is probably the best one.
  • When it comes to change, people really want two things in life—To feel like they are being heard, and to feel like they are not out of control. (This isn’t the same as feeling in control, it turns out). Simple tools (regardless of technology) that help them feel like they are being listened to, and that they are in control go a long way in building confidence. Working out rules of listening to each other, and “back briefing” of what the other party is expressing are like magic to Change Management.

 

  • The basic, (dare I say “Bare Bones”) tools for Change Management still work. Tools like a Stakeholder analysis, Training Plan and Culture Change Plan should be in the top tray of your toolbox. These tools will help you anticipate and plan activities that will give your business change project a fighting chance of success.

Final point– Change Management really could be thought of as another form of understanding and helping people deal with loss, and especially with the loss of the value their hard-won expertise gave them. They’re dealing, that is, with grief. People act unpredictably when they are grieving, and don’t always behave at their best.  Going with the wisdom a colleague named Daryl, I think it helps to always assume positive intent in the other parties—which is somehow harder to do when we are not face to face, and trying to read emotions or understand somebody via the small cues on a glitchy video tile.

Not to mention replacing body language with emojis when you’re trying to make a point.

 

 

Debates are pointless.

We’ve been told, you and I, that debating is the best way to understand an issue, because you get to hear both sides in an informed sort of way.

Except … at the end of a formal debate, what do the judges do (or, at the end of a presidential or vice-presidential debate, pundits (or polls) do?

They decide who won. Not which position was right. Quite the opposite — the entire premise of the debate format is that both positions are always equally right. All debates do is determine who is the better arguer. It’s intellectual relativism at its finest.

At the end of the presidential and vice-presidential debates, what have we learned? Nothing more about the issues or which of the two debaters would be better in office, unless the office they’re running for is Debater In Chief.

Welcome to my once-every-four years pre-election diatribe, built on the thin pretext that this relates to the business challenge of how you decide who to hire and retain. As with past diatribes I won’t suggest who you should vote for, just how each of us might go about deciding who to vote for.

Thought #1: Be happy. Yes, I think one of the two presidential tickets would be better for this country than the other. But. Whichever ticket is elected, we’ll end up with very smart, very qualified individuals as both president and vice president.

Like him or not, Barack Obama is very smart, and has demonstrated that he reviews evidence and listens to smart, well-informed individuals before making his decisions.

And, like him or not, Mitt Romney has demonstrated throughout his career that whatever else he might be, he’s also a very smart guy who knows how to listen, learn, and get things done.

Also, unlike many past elections, where one or both of the vice-presidential candidates were bad jokes, Joe Biden, for all his gaffes, is intensely knowledgeable, especially about foreign policy; while Paul Ryan is better known for his wonkiness than his charisma.

We have four highly qualified candidates. We should always be so lucky.

Thought #2: From a policy perspective, the election matters little. Whoever is elected, so long as either party holds more than 40% of the seats in the Senate it can block just about everything related to implementing presidential policy. Never mind which party started it. No matter who is elected president, and whichever party has a majority in the House and Senate, we can expect this dynamic to continue.

The only cure I see for this is instant run-off (aka Ranked Choice Voting). Here’s why: Instant run-off allows citizens to vote for the candidate they think is best qualified rather than the major-party candidate they think is best qualified.

In case this point isn’t clear: Voting for the third-party candidate you like best counts as a half vote against whichever major party candidate you’d prefer if your preferred third-party candidate loses.

So instant run-off is what’s needed for third-party candidates to get elected. We’d only need a few of them in the House and Senate for the third party to be the tie-breaker for every vote (and cloture vote). A viable third party might actually break the gridlock.

And no, gridlock isn’t desirable. Change is constant. We need to adapt, our government just as much as businesses and ourselves. Gridlock prevents that.

Thought #3: This time, perhaps party affiliation should be a deciding factor. I’ve never taken this position in the past. I hope I never take it in the future. But given the gridlock issue, and given that the two major parties have behaved very differently in the recent past … not that one or the other is better or worse, but that they have very different flaws … it might make sense to evaluate the candidates based on which of the two parties they’ve decided to lead and be constrained by, and why you think they made that choice.

That, in fact, is how I made my decision this time. I find one of the two parties to be far more consistently detestable than the other, far more than I feel strongly about either presidential candidate. And as the winner’s party, by directing the executive branch, gets much more power, that in itself is a major issue this year.

Thought #4: Vote. Remember, please, that as citizens we aren’t government’s customers, nor are we disinterested spectators. We’re our government’s owners, and as owners we’re responsible for it. Vote.

Enough. Thanks for indulging me. Next week it’s back to business.