by Chris Edgelow
Much has been written over the past several decades about the challenge leader’s face when struggling to lead increasingly complex change in their organizations. Clearly the challenge is showing no sign of abating, nor is the success rate increasing substantially.
Chaos Activity News (vol. 2, issue 1, published in 2007 by The Standish Group International) shares the results of their most current research. 35% of projects were successful, delivering the desired results within the expected time frame and budget. 46% were challenged, falling short on any or all of those same criteria. 19% of the projects failed, either being cancelled prior to completion or delivered and never used. The interesting thing about these current statistics is they represent only a very small improvement over the past several years The Standish Group has been measuring the success rates of projects.
A 35% success rate indicates 65% of the time organizations fall short in their efforts to lead change successfully. Imagine the cost in terms of time, money, energy, lost opportunity, etc. of a 65% failure rate. It boggles the imagination when you consider just your own organization let alone all the organizations currently undergoing some form of project implementation.
Over the past few decades of working with changing organizations, I’ve found two common practices for engaging the system to change. The first is the cascade method of communication. Here information starts at the top of the organization chart with the senior executives telling the level below them and that level in turn tells the level below them and so on, until the information supposedly ends up at the employee level. Most of us know this method is fraught with assumptions and pitfalls and rarely if ever results in truly engaging the whole
organization with the necessary information and willingness to implement the changes successfully.
The second method of engaging the system is the broadcast method of communication. Here, project/change related information originates from a single source, either the project team or the communication department, and is distributed to everyone in the organization at the same time. Emails containing links to project web sites, “talking-head” videos, all-hands presentations or memos flow thick and fast in a flurry of noise in an already very noisy organization. The vast majority of change related information is lost in the noise and ignored.
When information comes from a source unknown or unimportant to an employee, they tend to ignore it. When the information is sent to everyone throughout the organization, people tend to diminish its importance. Worse yet, when people are expected to get change related information by connecting to a website or wading through a needlessly complex document, they have to work for information they don’t want in the first place and are unlikely to invest the time and energy required to make the necessary changes.
The basic problem with both these approaches is a very small group of people (executives, the project team or communication department) is attempting to engage the whole system. A significantly more successful approach is to focus on engaging all of the leaders first, before worrying about trying to get the employees on board with the changes. This involves leaders leading leaders.
When I talk about leaders, I am referring to everyone occupying all levels of the organization chart above the employee level. Titles vary between organizations, but these leaders are the first level supervisors, middle managers, senior managers, executives as well as the project teams.
With the exception of project teams, (those temporary groups tasked with developing the change plan and helping to engage the system with the willingness and ability to implement it) every one of these people have an ongoing responsibility for two key tasks:
Task #1 is to do the work, ensuring the goods and services are delivered day in and day out. Task #2 involves changing the way they undertake task #1. Task #1 requires management skills. Task #2 requires leadership skills. Today’s turbulent environment requires a balance of both skills from people at all levels on the organization chart.
It is essential that all leaders get on the same page regarding the changes in their organization and make the required changes in their own attitudes and behavior before they focus on trying to lead the employees. This requires all of the leaders to get together and talk on a regular basis. Memos, websites, emails and slide shows will not work. The leaders must get face-to-face and engage in meaningful dialogue.
Dialogue comes from the Greek words dia and logos which mean flow of meaning. William Isaacs, in his extraordinary book Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together (© 1999 Doubleday) describes dialogue as a shared inquiry, a way of thinking and reflecting together. Rather than sending out change decrees from invisible sources or expecting change information to move throughout the organization like water flowing downhill, I have found dialogue sessions involving all levels of leaders to be the best way to ensure all of the leaders are fully engaged with the necessary changes.
Over the years of facilitating dialogue sessions, I have found it helpful to pay attention to a few key concepts:
- Connect the communication trinity. While it is important to get all levels of leaders on the same page by having them involved in these dialogue sessions, three specific groups are the most essential. The senior executives have the required power and authority. The project teams have the most up-to-date detailed change information. The first level supervisors have the ongoing connection to the employees who see them as the preferred source of change related information.
- Keep presentations to a minimum. Ensure presentations take up less than 25% of the scheduled time available and utilize few if any slides. Use briefing notes developed in advance to provide the essential information that supports the presentation. Incorporate strategy, change and transition messages into the presentations and briefing notes. Allow for a maximum amount of dialogue involving questions, concerns and responses from all leaders.
- Skilled facilitation helps. Using one or two facilitators skilled with large groups guiding the process is very helpful. This leaves the participants to deal with the content, at least until the leaders can manage their own process effectively without reverting to the traditional show-and-tell style. These dialogue sessions can include the leaders in one specific business unit or an entire organization. The discussions can range from a couple of hours to a couple of days depending on the complexity of the situation and the familiarity with this dialogue based process. They can be as free-flowing and loose or as tightly structured as the comfort and skill level among the leaders allows. It is important to start where the system is before inviting everyone into a room with chairs sitting in a circle and no agenda of any kind other than to simply ”check in”.
- Clarify expectations up front. Ensure the expectations for the session is clear up front as well as the expectations of who has to do what with the information after the session. The first level supervisors need to understand from the outset they will be expected to get this information to their employees within a specific time period, who they can get help from for those employee discussions if necessary, and to follow up after the session to ensure employee conversations do take place.
How engaged are the leaders in your organization? When was the last time they got together to talk? If you are not happy with your answers, I encourage you to try these leadership dialogue sessions — I know they will help.
I look forward to meeting you in our next Guiding Organizational Change Professional Qualification program. I can help you learn how to craft and implement an effective plan for change. To register or for more information, contact us toll free 1.888.944.1182.
Chris Edgelow
chris@sundance.ca
1.888.944.8383
Copyright 2008
