Kevin Weitz - Engage-to-Change

Merit's Engage-to-Change Research

2012-01-16T16:06:00.000-08:00

About this Report
For a decade or more, research by leading research groups such as Gartner
and others have shown convincingly that the great majority of large-scale
change or transformation projects fail or under-deliver. While this information
has been consistent during this period, there has been less tangible
information on how to address these problems.
Most leaders and managers, who are responsible for implementing
organizational change, experience the trials and tribulations of large-scale
project work on a day-to-day basis. Over the past few years however we have
become increasingly concerned (as the rate of change projects escalates
dramatically in companies) that we see the same challenges and mistakes
occurring over and over. Yet as external consultants we don’t often have the
leverage to make the significant enterprise-wide improvements that would
greatly enhance organizational adaptability and the success of projects.
This research study was designed to test our experience and thinking about
what we collectively believe “works”, and add research rigor and statistical
data to our recommendations to our clients on how to be more efficient and
effective in large-scale change initiatives. This research has supported our
hands-on, albeit subjective, thoughts and experience about what works,
but has produced a number of fascinating and thought provoking insights.
Increasingly, the results of this study are reinforcing our consulting methods
and recommendations to our clients, and we hope readers of this report will
find it useful as well. The bottom-line is that with careful planning and by taking
a proactive approach it is possible to address the problem of failing projects.

Read the full report here

Managing Organizational Change in Kazakhstan: In the rush to implement organizational changes, companies often don’t take the time to prepare their employees for change – and pay dearly.

2011-04-18T16:07:00.000-07:00

In 2005 I had one of the most profound career experiences of my life. I was facilitating a Organizational Effectiveness project for a major California company in their Kazakhstan operation, and was holding a meeting on my second day on the job (on a side note, it was 120 degrees outside, and on its way getting hotter). In the conference room were about 20 or so employees of the company, from Europe, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, and the US. There were also about 5 interpreters in the room to ensure everyone understood what was being said and to make themselves understood. Not only was I like a “deer in the headlights’ from being across the globe literally in another world, but it was daunting to consider how I was going to ensure that all of these diverse individuals were aligned and in support of the goals of the project. Well, I could not believe what unfolded.

When I started talking about the project phases – everyone knew what I was talking about. When I spoke of process improvement – everyone had a basic understanding. When I talked about change management – everyone understood. Every member of the group was able to engage in a conversation on these topics (that is not to say they all agreed with what I was saying) because this company has invested heavily over many years in ensuring all employees worldwide were trained in at least the basics of project management, business processes and change. This amazing capability greatly accelerated the process of change with these individuals and these diverse groups of individuals simply because the barriers of a common language on issues of organizational change were eliminated. In this way we were able to focus on the challenges of organizational efficiency and finding solutions versus simply being able to understand one another (and overcoming all of the defensiveness that can emerge when people are unable to understand the languages of business process, project management and organizational change).

Building long-term capability for change is critical. But projects are not the vehicles for achieving overall organizational adaptability to change. The organization that I’m referring to in my Kazakhstan story understood this – and created an adaptable workforce over many years to the point that adaptability to change is central to its culture. Driving change through projects can only utilize existing capabilities of a company culture – they can’t be the vehicle to create it. They are limited by it. The cost of experiencing the same difficulties and expecting a different result is – as one executive put it – “the definition of insanity”. Companies, like the one I described in my Kazakhstan example, reap huge benefits from implementing the key elements for engaging all employees in being change adaptable. Sure, this is not something that will show benefits next week or next month, but the long term benefits are immense, and the implications of not doing it – are, well, are also immense.

The Future of Work

2011-03-19T16:35:00.000-07:00

In 1994 I was travelling to several countries visiting various banking groups to analyze how they engaged their employees in Total Quality Management practices. I happened to be in New York visiting (then) Chase Manhattan Bank, and while doing some weekend touring visited St. Peter's Cathedral. I was just about to leave and I happened to walk through their small bookstore and a book caught me eye - The Re-Invention of Work by Matthew Fox. I read this book cover to cover on the plane flight home. This weekend (in the middle of a snowstorm in Tahoe), I'm reading a similar book, The Future of Work by Thomas Malone. Absolutely intriguing to anyone interested in Employee Engagement, Organizational Change, employee participation and related topics. Here's a quote that refers to how new communication technologies, especially social networking, is allowing workers to assume far greater levels of decision making than ever before:

"For the first time in history, it is now becoming economically feasible to give huge numbers of workers the information (and I would add influence and power) they need to make more choices (and decisions) themselves. Today, many more people in business can have the kinds of freedom that used to be common only in small organizations. And that can be very good news for productivity and for quality of life. When people make their own decisions, rather than follow orders, they often work harder and show more dedication and more creativity."

That is so on the mark, its amazing. The question I always ask is whey do we still have so much command and control bureaucracy that stifles worker innovation in large corporations today. This is a remarkable book - go onto Amazon and buy it.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51LGE-zqmBL._SL160_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-dp,TopRight,12,-18_SH30_OU01_AA160_.jpg

Excellent article on Employee Engagement

2011-02-15T14:33:00.000-08:00

I strongly recommend that you read this article on Employee Engagement published by the Economist and sponsored by HayGroup: http://businessresearch.eiu.com/sites/businessresearch.eiu.com/files/LON%20-%20PL%20-%20Hay%20report_WEB.pdf

Herding Cats

2011-01-07T11:44:00.000-08:00

Employees are our most important asset – Really?

This is a valuable read if you have not read it before. It’s titled “Human Change Management – Herding Cats” (link) by Mark Dawson and Mark Jones of PWC (I refer to them as “the Marks”). They tell an old but pertinent story – one that has been around for so long, but sadly is still as (or maybe more) pertinent today. Essentially too many companies give lip-service to this mantra but seldom back it up. “The Marks” describe what is now an old and sad tale – while organizational change becomes the norm, most change efforts fail or under-deliver. And evidence continues to show that much of the reason is that companies simply do not place adequate effort or investment in changing hearts and minds of their people.

Organizations don’t adapt to change; their people do. Implementing the right technology infrastructure and streamlining the business processes that flow through it are essential ingredients for effective organizational change. These components are well studied, mechanized and reasonably standardized. Methodologies, measurements and best-practice guidelines are available to optimize their implementation. But the human element that needs to make use of these systems in order to supply the leadership, judgment, flexibility and innovation needed to achieve business success is the most critical ingredient – and least understood… Most companies say their most important assets are their people, but few behave as if this were true.

I share this view and this experience. In a recent project with an international company, I witnessed this in blatant fashion. While developing a new corporate culture based on a winning attitude and employee engagement, they were simultaneously “cutting heads” to reduce cost. Sitting in meetings where head-count reduction numbers were being decided, any proposals from me on an approach to cost reduction that engaged employees was dismissed outright. At the same time the notion that employees were at the center of the organization was emblazoned on the walls to the entrance of their corporate headquarters.

Research that I personally managed in the mid 1990’s mirrors a 2002 Watson Wyatt study referenced by “the Marks” in which “three-year total returns to shareholders are three times higher at companies where employees understand corporate objectives and the ways in which their jobs contribute to achieving them. In a study of change management strategies by McKinsey & Company, the 11 most successful companies gained an average of 143% of the returns they expected. In these, effective change management clicked at every level: Senior and middle managers and front-line employees were all involved, responsibilities were clear, and the reasons for the change were understood throughout the organization. Conversely, companies that had problems at all three levels captured, on average, only 35% of the value they expected”.

But most companies don’t measure metrics such as these. It is a cancer that is invisible. But they do wonder why Employee Engagement numbers are poor and why (during economic upswings) it is difficult to attract and retain top talent.

In 1973 I read a profound book by Studs Terkel called “Working”. He is famous for the quote (amongst many others)…"Work is about a search for daily meaning as well as daily bread, for recognition as well as cash, for astonishment rather than torpor; in short, for a sort of life rather than a Monday through Friday sort of dying“. His work affected me deeply and impacted the course of my career in managing change – people change. And in 2011 things do not appear to have changed much. What do you think? Share your experiences in your company with us (confidentially if you prefer) whether you are at executive level or “simply” an “ordinary worker” as Studs Terkel put it (a term he disliked because he saw so many “ordinary” workers doing extra-ordinary things). Equally importantly, let us know what should be done differently. What should companies be doing to manage change more effectively and make employees more engaged and more satisfied with their work and more productive (which I believe go hand in hand).

Send an email to meritocm@merithr.com

Executive Leaders are the Key to Successful Organizational Change! But middle managers are where the “rubber meets the road” to drive change!

2011-01-07T11:09:00.000-08:00

Gartner Inc., the world’s leading information technology research and advisory company, have frequently noted that the critical success factors for managing SAP (the German Software company) and other ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning software) implementations are people issues; behaviors, skills, actions – the “soft” side of managing ERP implementations, business process redesign, organizational restructuring and other strategic change initiatives …

Enterprise change is accelerating for most organizations. Mergers, acquisitions, ERP, new products and processes and responding to customer demands all require change. Unfortunately, mastery of change is a core competency for few enterprises. But these “hard” (system) issues are not the primary challenges to successful change. New tools and processes are worthless unless people change their behaviors and actions. These personal change struggles are the soft” issues that … every executive must address to realize results from change.
(Gartner Inc, Oct 2005)

We totally agree. But most business leaders we engage with tend to know this – a big improvement from just a few years ago where the soft factors of change were poorly understood. We now find that the weak link is at middle management, supervisor and team leader levels. This is where the “rubber meets the road” in ensuring employees adapt to changes resulting from ERP system, process and organizational design initiatives.

Managers as champions of change
A cornerstone of managing and sustaining change is to embed ownership and accountability for ongoing change into the fabric of the organization. The place to start (assuming top leaders are already committed) is changing the role of mid managers, supervisors and team leaders. Jim Clemmer, a leading author on leadership and management including titles such as The Leader’s Digest, Growing the Distance, Pathways to Performance, Firing on All Cylinders and The VIP Strategy, notes the following:

As members or leaders of operational and improvement teams, (middle managers) are much closer to the action than anyone in senior management. So they have a much better sense of which change and improvement tactics will work. But perhaps even more importantly, they hold the balance of implementation power. Without their commitment, the best-laid plans will fail.
(Jim Clemmer, The Clemmer Group, 2001)

Managers are often promoted into their roles because they are good marketers, accountants, engineers and the like. Frequently it’s not because they are good “people” managers or team leaders with strong “soft” skills (surprisingly this is still true). But in this age of constant change, managers need to be facilitators of change and have the skills to interpret top-down strategy into operational change. They are the individuals at the “in the trenches” who are able to engage their teams, have conversations on the need for change, understand potential areas of resistance and coach and guide their teams to a future vision. Below are a number of important competencies and roles that managers need to perform if companies want to become more adaptable to ongoing change.

Middle managers as process and system owners
Organizational change is frequently focused at work processes and systems. During a recent SAP implementation, a Finance VP mentioned to me that if it had not been for a major technical problem which forced him to roll up his sleeves and become completely involved in solving the problem, he would have only had superficial knowledge of the system. He would have relied on the Super Users and consultants in his unit to operate the system and train other users. Being forced to roll-up his sleeves and solve the SAP problem created the urgency for him to fully understand the system and also become much more knowledgeable about the end to end processes and how they impacted other functions both up and downstream.

On further investigation it became clear that many or most senior and middle managers only had a conceptual knowledge of the system and were heavily reliant on their Super Users and consultants for overcoming problems, answering questions and training team members. Senior and middle managers by default should be the experts on how end to end work is conducted, who does it, and how they connect with and impact upstream and downstream functions. The reason is that it is at the process and system level where operational change takes place. With this reality, managers become change champions, coaching and training their team members, holding process optimization and innovation meetings to find better and more efficient ways of doing business and delivering better outputs to customers.

Managers as facilitators of ongoing learning

To learn is to change. I would wager that most manager job descriptions in your company describe some level of managerial accountability for hands-on training of team members. But I have seldom seen this function performed well in most companies I’ve worked with. Researchers at PWC comment as follows:

The usual approach to rapid training – taking employees off-site for intensive training – is in fact misguided. Such courses tend to work against human nature, since they are typically an attempt to impart all the knowledge needed to all staff in one fell swoop. On-the-job training (by managers, supervisors and super users) coupled with self-paced e-learning and online help to deliver personalized assistance as required is in fact a more effective way of ensuring staff get training that is relevant to their jobs.
(Dawson & Jones, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Human Change Management: Herding Cats)

I believe that the role of “on the job learning” facilitated by mangers and supervisors needs to be very specific and focused - It is not taking over the role of specialized trainers. It is rather linked to the manager’s role as Process Owner described above. Managers should hold periodic (my experience suggests this should be every week, even if for 30 minutes) team meetings where they review work processes and procedures, review process performance metrics, and identify problems areas brainstorm ideas for process improvement. These meetings can be the most powerful learning forums for new employees and team members who are being exposed to the work of other team members for the first time.

Managers as ERP “Super Users”
In many ERP implementations, the role of Super User (SU) is a critical role typically an employee in the client company with a penchant for technology as well as people:

The SAP Super User (is) gifted with the talents of knowing their portion of the system well, they often are asked to go beyond the role of their day-to-day job to provide or assist in the provision of documentation, training, and support – engaging users and providing a personal touch to bring harmony between the people and the SAP system.
(The Adventures of Super Users
Cristin Merritt, Insite Objects, Dirk Manuel, ExxonMobi, Suzette & Hannah-Hessler, Applied Materials)

The Super User role is an important way of transferring knowledge from consultants and building competence and ownership for change and knowledge into the organization. Too often however, Super Users are selected from junior staffers. Not that this is a bad thing in itself, but team managers tend to delegate this role and then continue business as usual while the SU grows and develops knowledge. And it’s the SUs that largely facilitate the change at system and process levels. They are expected to coach team members and conduct training sessions, and they reach out and communicate with other interconnected functions to ensure users in those functions know what changes are in the pipeline. Unfortunately, many SUs are not senior enough to influence change. In one case I experienced recently, a Finance department manager had elected herself to be her department’s SU. She said “if I am going to lead my department in this implementation, coach and train my team, optimize our end to end processes and work with other functions to ensure understanding and data integrity, I need to be at the forefront of knowledge, learning and managing this change. The Super Users role is what managers should be doing anyway”. I Agree!

Managing process/system Communities of Practice
So, if managers begin to perform the role of Process Owners, what mechanism or structure is effective for performing this role? A well known energy firm has effectively used Communities of Practice (CoPs) to promote a focus on end to end global processes and provide a mechanism for managers to effect change and continuously improve end to end processes. CoPs are formalized teams of key players that are responsible for a core business process across all functional structures and countries that own the process and are responsible for its continuous improvement and performance. These CoPs collaborate and share knowledge using collaboration software tools as well as hold global teleconferences on a regular basis. CoPs are powerful mechanisms for managers to engage thousands of people involved in a process anywhere in the world to share knowledge, learn and adapt to process driven change.

Managers as communicators
“Perhaps the most important factor in determining the effectiveness of your organization is the quality and clarity of internal and external communications. Good communication streamlines processes, enhances teamwork, and creates a positive culture; by contrast, dysfunctional communications creates a climate of misunderstanding and mistrust.”
(Harvard Business Publishing, 2009)

A leading global company I worked with recently attempted to effect a culture change in their organization from a collegiate, easy going company to a driven, more performance oriented culture. A very impressive communications campaign was developed with posters and interactive web-based learning tools. The problem they faced is that this communications strategy was media driven and went over the heads of middle managers. It lost traction because it was did not have day to day practicality driven by managers and team leaders. For effective change, particularly of the scope and size of culture change which impacts every employee in the organization, managers must become the primary vehicle for disseminating information and soliciting feedback. They are in the best position to gather feedback and assess resistance to change. Making sure that mangers are effective communicators is a significant challenge in itself, but it is an essential one if large scale change is to be effective. Good managers are most trusted by their employees and are the ones that influence behavior on a day to day basis.

“When leaders embrace honest conversations, dramatic and rapid change occurs”
(Michael Beer, Trust Matters in Business, May 2007)

Michael Beer, the world renowned authority on organizational effectiveness and change and Professor Emeritus at the Harvard Business School, notes that “the core element (for driving organizational change) is the ability (of line managers) to have “honest conversations” with their teams – this is the level that employees can be engaged at an emotional level. Without this direct interaction, even the most effectively crafted corporate communications campaign will have little impact.

Conclusion – Drive change where the “rubber meets the road”

Placing greater importance on the role of middle managers and team leaders as facilitators of change is a powerful starting point for an organization to become more adaptable to constant change. Selecting, promoting and developing managers based on their ability to communicate and create a sense of excitement and urgency, facilitate learning and coach team members, facilitate process communities and encourage process innovation and continuous improvement is critical to building the capacity to change into the fabric of an organization.

Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed …. Something Changed?

2010-11-30T17:16:00.000-08:00

This old wedding custom has its roots in Victorian times and a lot has changed in the interim for sure. But there is a lot to be said for aspects of this tradition when it comes to organizational change. Very often, when organizations are facing large scale changes such as technology implementations, business process changes and restructuring, many companies will bring in big consulting groups who are experienced at systems integration and change management. In a recent technology implementation project where we were partnering with a large consulting firm, we were concerned that that the change management strategy being applied was mostly “Something New” instead of a mix of “Old” and “Borrowed”.

Organizational Change is difficult enough, and one of the approaches we take when challenged with a project is to first understand the impact that the change will have on various functional groups. We then look at what programs and processes the organization already has in place that may either inhibit the change effort (for example, too much change driven by different groups, impacting functions at the same time), or have the potential of supporting the change. For example, in a banking organization we linked a CRM (Customer Relationship Management) system implementation with a customer satisfaction program that was already underway. Left separate, these programs would have conflicted, but linked they brought added synergy with incentives to the CRM implementation. In another change project focused on process standardization in an energy company, we recommended connecting with the company’s Six Sigma/continuous improvement effort to both engage large numbers of employees within their teams as well as focus their efforts on process improvements. In another case, where a utility company was implementing a new technology, we recommended utilizing a company wide problem solving program with the technology implementation.
So, that old Victorian tradition can also provide meaning to change in the new millennium – when developing a change strategy to support large scale projects, look for “Something Old” and “Something Borrowed” first before turning to Something New.

Let me and othes know about your experiences with large scale change projects. I look forward to your comments and thoughts.

2009-03-15T19:00:00.000-07:00

Social Networking in the workplace - embracing the creativity of all employees:

Recently, while with Levi Strauss & Co., we conducted an assessment of the learning and development aspects of the SAP implementation, and I was holding interviews with managers and employees across the Finance organization. Because of technical problems, most technical support staff had been pulled back to try and solve the problem, creating a situation where users in the field where left to fend for themselves. I was amazed at how resilient many of these people were in the face to having to perform with a totally new process and technology, with little or no technical support to answer an ever changing scenario of technical fixes that were being put in place. Most impressive was how some teams had set up informal collaboration networks to pose questions on how to perform tasks or were instant messaging each other to share knowledge in this rapidly changing environment.

While adhoc and localized, I was amazed at their drive to use technology to realize the collective knowledge of users across functional boundaries. At the same time I was reading an amazing book, "Wikinomics" by Tapscott and Williams, which delves deeply into social networking in society and organizations. As a result I, together with Jean Heller (the SAP OR lead), developed a SharePoint knowledge management and collaboration portal that focused on engaging over 2000 SAP users. While in its early days, this system is showing real promise in providing employees with an environment to dynamically network and share knowledge on SAP and end to end processes. A bit like an internal “FaceBook” inside the company.

But technology is not going to be the total solution for companies to engage the innovative energies of employees and to share this knowledge with others. It will take supportive leadership, a culture that fosters employee involvement, innovation and fun (read the section on the Geek Squad in Wikinomics - amazing). My career changing "Ah Hah" about the power of engaging employees was back in the 1990's in a large retail bank, where I implemented a GE Workout type program that involved over 15,000 employees. In an incredibly militaristic culture, the level of energy and innovation by employees to find ways to streamline work processes and improve customer service was truly incredible. With this system, this bank improved from worst customer service to best in the industry over a six year period. Almost entirely due to the innovation and efforts of employees - bottom-up! The punch-line of these success stories is to link these two powerful phenomena - encourage and engage employees in their natural work groups to be innovative on how to work more efficiently and effectively, and use technology to allow them to interact, be innovative and share knowledge dynamically (for example using Twitter type messaging for immediate updates). Amazing things are possible in the workplace by engaging employees in this way - BUT, top leadership and corporate culture must be supportive or the latent creativity and energy of employees will lie dormant.

Posted by Kevin Weitz at 7:00 PM 0 comments
Labels: Social Networking in the workplace - embracing the creativity of all employees