I did a speech to a group of people interested in leadership at the NHS for London earlier in the year. They bring in a number of speakers from business, consulting and academia to inspire their talent managers, leaders and HR staff. I was asked to speak about leadership of change. A big organization and a big issue for any leader. See the pod cast here :
if the podcast doesn’t load go back a page on the NHS site to find Masterclass and then select the podcasts for the video…
Many people think that change is about big bang revolutions in the work place. A lots of planned change can be seen this way – getting a reorganisation through, getting a new project launched or changing the business model entirely. However much of what we ask people to do is about incremental change, ratcheting up performance and getting more from the same resources. Do the same tactics and principles apply here as in big bang? I think they do, but it requires more skill from the leader to get the same momentum. A series of small incremental changes, well executed can provide as much increase in performance as a big bang initiative.
So what are the skills required to get momentum in these less dramatic change processes? You would not be surprised to hear then that they are still about the 3e’s Envision, create a view of what cumulatively the change will bring about and how this is a good thing, Engage – what do you want people to do and why them, and Execute – the plan that you share about how it works in practice and how they contribute day by day by day. If anything the need to really understand the individual is greater here as there is less dramatic challenge.
Leading change will not always be a bet the company issue but it will never be an issue where you can take contribution from people for granted. Leadership is defined by follower and getting people interested and commited to slow burn change is a real skill and worth the effort.
It’s not an absolute, but in my opinion there are no secrets to time management… most really good leaders I have worked with are excellent at it. What does that mean? as most of these people are hard workers by most peoples standards. What strikes me time and time again about really good leaders are they are soooooo focused. So focused that they find the means to delegate really well, that they find the means not to be distracted by the small and inconsequential and they find the time to spend energy on those areas that makes a difference. A feature of good leaders time management is that they almost never sacrifice face time with staff for task time.
When the genie of the magic lamp appears for me and grants me three wishes the first will be to ban time management programmes, they serve no useful purpose except to highlight how poor some of us are at focusing on the critical. People don’t need more time management tools they need a clear purpose in life and their work and get on with it. All trivia will evaporate believe me.
The second wish would be interpersonal, very satisfying and not for publication on a blog.
Finally the last would be to improve the status of educators across the globe to that of the past where those that enabled the learning of others were seen to be wise and respected. If we spent more time and got better people into our childrens education in the front end we as a society would spend less sorting out the mess later on.
In a recent speaking engagement with the NHS in London I presented some of the ideas from our book on the dual economy and the reasons why there is a split in buying habits and expectations from the market. It’s either lean or luxury, low cost and low care or high value and high expectations. My examples were from the airline business and from retailing, but meant to spark some interest and thought from the NHS executives.
The question I was asked in the masterclass that followed was about the need in the NHS to offer high care and meet high expectation whilst being low cost. My suggestion to them that this was neigh impossible got the response that I didn’t understand their industry. Well on reflection I think they are right, at least in terms of the politics of their situation. In no other area of endeavour, except maybe the military, do we ask so much from the people we employ as public servants. On the one hand we ask for real value for money and on the other we ask for exemplary patient care treating each person as an individual and with individual needs and expectations. If we look at the economics of this it does not add up…. individualisation takes time and to a lesser extent money. High performance in terms of treatments takes investment in skills and expertise that is not cheap. Low cost enterprises don’t hire expensive well trained staff, don’t invest in great infrastructure and don’t pay for good advice and services. The two situations are not compatible.
Take the US model where health is provided by private contractors and insurance based arrangements. It works to a degree , except for the very low income or no income. Germany and France are similar in some respects – you pay to get a great service and both the USA and our European neighbors have high standards. Care costs !
So what has this got to do with change and leadership? Well the question was asked by someone who seemed resigned to doing the impossible – being asked to do something that economically was not logical – being asked to split his focus. Well I think in the Uk at least the task is to deliver exemplary care at a reasonable price. Not to be lean and mean and low cost – just right cost. Not to cut the budget and cut the care but to spend well and not waste money that is better spent. Re framing his question would have been a better response from myself, to what could you do really well and do for less cost than now? We can all improve but we don’t have to be world class on service and price…. ask an economist.. the math don’t work.
I have a number of personal contacts who are teachers and who happen to work in good schools here in the UK. What do I mean by good schools… not my definition but that of the inspectors who have rated at least two of them ” outstanding” in terms of the education they provide. What is interesting to me is that in both of these schools the teachers I know and it seems their peers find the leadership of the head master appallingly bad. In one where I have much more knowledge, the heads actions would not be tolerated in any other organization. Poor work ethic, poor technical skills in their subject, atrocious man management, blame culture and not backing staff against parents or the local authority in times of disagreement. So what is happening? In these two examples both schools in terms of performance of their task are really outstanding against an external standard and the experience of the kids.
My belief is in areas of vocation, rather than jobs, people rise to the challenge of doing good work regardless of the head of the organisation. More so than in a commercial organisation the drive and determination of the staff makes great things happen. The larger good, the clear worthwhile goal , the uniting interest , serves to somehow replace the leadership placed by authority. A good result can be gained by the leadership emerging from a second, third level line of the organisation. In these institutions people lead themselves where there is a vacuum of real direction and support – in some instances in spite of objections and interference from above.
So what can we learn from this? Well shared goals and uniting beliefs, which are hallmarks of a vocation, seem to have more drive than any vision or mission from a leader who you don’t believe adds any value. Can we as managers of people get more shared understanding and more of a core belief in what we are doing? I think we can.
What is really sad is how good could these schools be if the head teachers were good? that is such a waste !!
When we as consultants or internal change agents are working in any organization, however large or small that is, we should consider the variety of ways change can be brought about. At least in terms of process, there are many many many tools and approaches for improving organizational performance. At least I have never been asked to directly instigate intentional reduction in effectiveness, so I have to assume improvement is the common aim of change programmes. I am still surprised at how wedded to one or two method many of us can be, not because of their superior utility, but because we have always got results from using them or because we have deep experience in them. As change agents, consultants, managers tasked with getting improved organizational performance we should be eclectic thinkers, management magpies, raving researchers, midwives of innovation, seekers of nuggets of novelty and all round scavengers of ideas that work – regardless of their provenance. If we don’t develop new tool sets and new approaches to using tools, getting to mastery of our crafts then all human invention would have stopped at the wheel, hewn from a solid block with a crude axe.. no need to find something better.
Search the literature of group dynamics, psychology, lean systems, quality management, Open Space Technology, NLP, cbt, brief therapy, Problem solving methodologies, Engineering design, influence and social networks to find new and novel approaches to your organisation – if hitting the nail with your hammer is causing you rsi, GET SOME MORE TOOLS or get out of the game of change.
In these days of cyber networks its easy to think we are really well connected, have contacts, know people and are linked in. Well relationships are critical to leadership and even more so when taking others on a change journey… so why not pay a little more attention to the relationship we have. Making explicit what is implicit is a starting point. As an exercise for individuals relationship mapping is a great way to make you think about who you know, and what they know and how they influence your success.
See the text below for a way of mapping what is, what should be and how to get from one to the other… no man is an island, or even a small nationalistic country – co operation, interdependence and plain old scratching each others back is back in fashion… not that it was ever really out.
If you don’t know who you know, how can you manage relationships to ensure you are successful in leading change? We all have circles of influence – some formal given by position and rank, and many more informal given by history, shared interests, debts, favors and recommendations. If you want to really make an impact in change leadership you should know who to bring into your camp who may not be there, and how to influence the ones who already are.
Take a large blank canvas; a flip chart pad is idea, but the back of a poster or a large format paper. A3 is probably the smallest which will work well.
Draw a circle in the centre with your name or initials in the centre. Then start to map the surrounding space with the names, or if you only know the position/title of the people who are in your network currently. Follow these guiding rules:
The most frequent meetings/ interactions should be closer to your circle.
Importance of the relationship is shown by size of circle
Influence you have is show by the size of the arrow going from you them
Influence they have over you is show by the arrow going from them to you.
You will finally after some thought have a diagram like this below representing the current state of you network.
The next step we encourage people we work with to take is to then think about the distance, should any be nearer, denoting more frequent interaction? Should any be further away? Should there be anyone on this map that is not currently? Are the arrows showing the relationships and influence that you need to be successful? Who should you be more influential with in this network? It’s also useful to ask if there are people in the network that should not be there for this project, but demand attention regardless.
We then ask them to update or redraw the map – showing the network that they should have as a change leader.
The second map shows the change in line strength denoting reducing or increasing influence, and also some new contacts to make, HR, the Head of Logistics, Accounts and Amanda. The frequency of the interaction between Sue and some of the contacts in the network have also changed in this example as the importance of their relationships change in the light of leading change.
The next step is deciding what action to take in each case to move from diagram one, to diagram two.
For the last week I have been working with a large group of internal consultants expanding their understanding of the nature of change management and the role of consultants. The participants of the programme, which is an accredited programme awarding certificates in consulting fundamentals, were already practitioners of change. However in their public service setting they were mainly concerned with and focused on the optimization of logistics and supply chain matters. In their evolution they has used a number of sophisticated optimization tools, spread sheet and analytical engine based techniques to deliver improved efficiency and performance. Unfortunately the success of this approach has made many of them, and their organization’s managers blind-sighted to many of the other approaches and alternative tools available to manage the successful change.
What was most surprising to me was the lack of emphasis placed on the softer skills of consulting and change, the relationship building and influencing skills. The week was revealing in many ways… the depth of confidence and belief in the methods that the participants displayed, the restricted range of approaches they used, the organization constraints placed upon them ( by an organization clearly in need of change) and the lack of engagement with the client that many of them expressed. It seemed the clients needs were secondary to getting work done.
As we progressed through the module of study and education, there were many occasions where the sound of pennies dropping was akin to standing next to a slot machine paying out the jackpot !
Relationships and influence are everything in change management ! No tool, regardless of provenance or power will work where there is no trust and credibility. People chose to change, people chose to follow, people chose who to trust and these choices are all based on relationship and influencing skills.
So what is my point in this post? If you work in change leadership, as an internal consultant or manager of projects then think about what you concentrate on when leading change, if its tools and processes then you need to change the way you change. Influence is everything – any system can be made effective if the people who use it want it to work well. You role in leading change is creating the conditions for people to want to do a great job and get great outcomes, without influence you are playing the game with the dice loaded against you.
We seem to strive to find the perfect process for change and the means of getting people involved in change in our organizations. I am not convinced there is a perfect formula, a magic bullet or a perfect recipe. However the human condition seems to demand some involvement and some discretion in all elements of life we participate in. Why would committing to change be any different?
In the 6o’s Martin Luther Kings raised the masses ideals with his “I have a dream” speech. Obama is doing the same now, raising hope when times are tough, sharing a dream for a strong and influential America, whilst at the same time encouraging people to take responsibility for the change – a dialogue of commitments.
Without a dream to aspire to you cannot inspire others to do something. Delivery is about shared perspiring – doing something that is worth doing, and making the effort to do it well.
The key it seems to us is the ability to create a dream, Visioning, that is credible and aspirational at the same time. That dream demands a dialogue with the congregation, the staff, the participants, those affected by its realisation, this we call Engagement. Executing is the process of delivery, getting things done through others and making sure they have the means, the information, the resources, the energy to do so.
There are not magic wands in change, but there are some approaches that work if used with skill and consideration for the context. As they say en France Bon Courage !!
I found this not too old piece from Jonas on youtube. You’ve got to see he has a point about companies not being able to survive by being mediocre copies of everyone else. We think innovation and re energizing comes from you – the competents within a company – not the experts from outside. Read about how you can make change happen and not become a slave to the off the shelf solutions peddled by the global consulting houses.
Implementation is not hard, its just about consistency and stamina. If you have applied the 3E approach and have clarity of vision, shared and understood in terms of a concrete challenge, and you have the right people involved and committed to action then implementation is a grind but straight forward. The role of the leaders in implementation is one of a provider of resources and a information. Monitoring of the right measures is crucial as is communication of that to the right people in the right way. Having feedback on performance is crucial to maintaining momentum, and energy. Why do you think running machines with monitors are so popular and stop watch lap times so motivating for runners? Human’s need to know how we are doing, and that is one role of the leader in execution of change – scores on the doors for people.
All implementation will hit problems. There is not a battle plan in the world that will survive contact with the enemy. In change leadership the same applies in terms of implementation, just add people to make it obsolete. However, having a plan to start with is important. It’s the box to think outside of, it’s the route to deviate from, and it’s the budget to exceed or beat. No plan is the solution, just part of the process.
Leaders need to be tenacious, resilient and at the same time humble enough to admit when things are tough. Stick with it and tell people how they are doing, implementing change in a nut shell.
I have come to the conclusion over time that most of the definitions of leadership and management are confusing, rather than helpful. Dependent on which text you read you find elements crossing over from one to another of the two concepts. When we talk about change particularly the crossover is more evident. Is this important or even relevant to change? Well in my opinion it is, because of the recurring nature of change, the fact that it is never done and dusted for any length of time, means that people can quickly tire of it and therefore, for me, they need leadership more than they need management. Ahh, you say.. but what do you mean by leadership? Well rather than create a long list of attributes, traits or actions of leaders, I thought I would cut to the chase and give you the single most important issue for me…. People.
Most change management texts are about the process of getting change implemented, the systems, the plans, the stages and the methodology. All of the above are important but not as critical as the people element of change. Leadership for me is about helping people through change.
Therefore the term is about people more than about processes and tasks and systems. Leaders inspire others to follow and others to do something themselves. Again this is about personal change. You can manage others quite clinically, without getting emotionally involved by following the book and doing as policy says. You cannot, at least in my experience, lead without getting emotionally involved in how people react, without taking it personally, without having a real stake in the outcomes at heart.
Now a quick google will reveal lists of the difference and similarity between leadership and management, but for a quick definition, look to leaders lead people through change, managers ensure processes are followed.
Who do you want in these turbulent times at the top of your organisation, a leader of people or a manager of processes?
