Archive for the 'Changeology of business Culture' Category

Simple Truths to Change

In Workforce Magazine Today, I came across the commentary below. Dave Ulrich has provided 3 simply stated truths regarding organizations and change. He is spot on when he states, Organizations who don’t change, or understand change, or at least admit they really don’t understand the nuances about change won’t make it.

Interestingly, this week I happen to have had two distinct conversations.

One person said to me ” When you say change, people don’t know what it means. It’s ambiguous. It doesn’t mean anything because they can’t get their arms around it”

Another colleague said to me, “In my very large corporate America organization, those who report to me have no clue about managing change. They run away from it because it seems so foreign to them but they would be the first to say they embrace change.”

That is the irony, most individuals I have spoken too regarding change, look you in the eye and say they are all for change, “We live in constant change everyday” and yet most organizations live in it but have very little awareness or knowledge about how to embrace it, use it or understand it’s accumulating affect.

The article below has very good concepts around “structuring or framing change” primarily planned change. However, one truth we haven’t spoken of yet is the Truth of the Unmanageability of Change.

In today’s complex environments, much change is occuring through small events, or through networks of individuals acting as a collective. However, those small events sometimes are not noticed until they accumulate through small actions. They aren’t noticed because these events are within the organization, possible due to individual actions or actions taken by a group of individuals. Most of the time these small events by the individual aren’t viewed as an “event of change”. 

 But, these events happen repeatively and the event itself may look different each time it occurs. Eventually, these small events result in an accumulated affect and now people notice. However, these small events leading to larger outcomes now have a life of there own. This is only one small example, change is no longer able to be managed with the same clarity or predictableness we thought was possible.

Change is enabled and supported, but the actions created through change, during change, and after the change event, are not managable or predicatable.

However, the principles below are good for understanding some important organizational concepts such as authenticity, transparency, willingness to speak the truth, the need for action or execution and watching for patterns of actions.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Change Happens…
By Dave Ulrich

Change happens. It is in the technology that makes our cell phones, Internet devices and our seemingly new products out of date. It is in the demographics of the diverse workforce as baby boomers learn to work aside Millennials. It is in changing global economic cycles with simultaneous growth in some markets and recession in others. It surrounds us.

Change matters. An executive recently said that a business that took 50 years to build could be lost in two if it does not change. Individuals, teams and organizations that change succeed; those that do not fall behind, unable to ever catch up. As a distinct organizational capability, change goes by many names: agility, cycle time, flexibility, responsiveness and transformation. Organizations that change respond to external demands, create higher intangible market value, implement strategies, plan for the future and create excitement among employees. Change means doing things faster, and so change enables. Instead of winning through innovation, customer service and globalization, leaders demand fast innovation, rapid customer service and swift globalization.

So what does the inevitability of change mean for HR professionals? Let me suggest three principles HR can implement to coach, design, deliver and facilitate change.

Principle 1:

Make the unspeakable speakable

Anyone who has been in a relationship for a long period of time has discovered that without candid conversation, the parties turn away from each other instead of toward each other. This drift eventually widens and the relationship fades. To build a relationship, caring partners need to turn toward each other, which means they need to talk. They especially need to find ways to talk about the things they don’t want to talk about. They need to make the unspeakable speakable.

In almost every organization there are unspeakable viruses that limit successful change. These viruses are customs and norms that—without being talked about—shape how employees behave. In many cases, they hinder an organization’s ability to successfully change. In our work, we have identified over 30 such viruses (for a complete list of the viruses, visit www.rbl.net or e-mail me at dou@umich.edu). Here are some of them:

Activity mania: We like to be busy; our badge of honor is full calendars, even if it excludes thinking and results. We hide behind our “busyness.”

Have it my way: We don’t learn from each other, and the “not invented here” syndrome, in which outside ideas are devalued, rules the workplace.

False positive: We do “nice talk.” We are overly kind even if we disagree.

Authority ambiguity: In our organization, we are not sure who is responsible or accountable, so no one is.

Turfism: We defend our turf, sometimes to the detriment of the overall organization.

Over-changed, also known as the “full sponge”: We have a capacity problem. There are too many changes going on at once. We are burned out and stressed out on change. We cannot let things go.

Over-measure: We measure everything, even to a fault. Our dashboards are way too complex.

Under-measure: We don’t have indicators that track the important stuff. We measure what is easy, not what is right.

Going for the big win: We look for the mega change that will solve all problems instead of starting small.

When these viruses can be named, identified and talked about, they can be overcome. HR professionals can help their managers and teams detect and eradicate these viruses by daring to describe them, and then by having candid conversations about them so they don’t return.

We have found that new employees often see these viruses better than old employees do. When we visit a friend or family member, we more readily see the clutter in their house than they do themselves (and, unfortunately, vice versa). We have also found that teams can actually have fun naming, drawing and self-mocking the unspeakable change viruses that lurk in their organization. One team drew their most prevalent virus, and then posted these drawings in their offices until the virus went away.

——————————————————————————–

Creating a mind-set of change means that HR professionals model and encourage leaders to constantly learn, unlearn, improve and accept the inevitability of change.

——————————————————————————–

Principle 2:

Turn what we know into what we do

Those who have not seen me for five or six years almost always remark that I have lost a lot of weight. They want to know how I did it, and are surprised when I tell them that I have in fact discovered the secrets of losing weight (and hopefully sustaining the loss).

With bated breath, they listen to my secrets: “Eat less, eat right and exercise more.” As the reality of these “insights” sinks in, they are disappointed.

They have missed the point. The challenge of weight loss and other personal changes is not discovering a secret of what to do, but learning the discipline of doing it. Knowing what to do is much easier than actually doing it. In managing change in organizations, most leaders can accurately list within two minutes seven to 10 keys to successful change. In our work, my colleagues and I have identified a number of keys to successful change management, including:

Leadership: Have a strong leader who sponsors and champions the change by investing time and energy.

Need: Create a shared need so that the rationale for the change exceeds the resistance to the change (when people know the “why,” they accept the “what”).

Vision: Shape a future vision with direction, goals and behaviors.

Commitment: Engage and commit others to this vision by giving them information about the change and getting them to behave as if they are committed to the change.

Decisions: Build a decision protocol that segments the vision of tomorrow into decisions that are made today.

Systems: Institutionalize a change through wise investments in people, communication, rewards, information and data, and budget.

Measures: Monitor how the change is going so that learning and adaptation occur.

HR professionals help turn what we know into what we do by bringing the discipline of a change checklist to any project or initiative. Pilots, surgeons, merger specialists and fast-food restaurant managers find that the discipline of a checklist increases performance. An HR professional may regularly perform change audits by making sure that the key elements of successful change are diagnosed and implemented in a disciplined way.

When HR professionals use a change checklist within an organization, they can diagnose what investments should be made to make change happen. In many cases, this diagnostic can identify where not to invest change resources, since that one particular discipline is already sufficient for change, while other disciplines are in short supply. In one case, the first three dimensions (leadership, need and vision) scored high, but decision protocols and institutionalizing the change scored low. This team did not need to spend more time on discussing why the change should occur or what the outcome of the change was, but on how to make it happen. In another case, leaders scored high on the change disciplines, but employees did not.

HR professionals who do a change checklist make sure that knowledge about change is turned into action that delivers change.

Principle 3:

Make change a pattern, not an event

Ultimately, change is not about a single incident, but about creating a new pattern. People sometimes ask me when I am going to go off my diet, which is a misguided question. It assumes that my weight loss is tied only to a diet, not a way of life.

In organizations, HR professionals help make change a way of life by seeing that it becomes assimilated into how work is done. Change is not something that happens in a workshop, team meeting or process review, but ­occurs naturally and continuously during all work activities. Creating a mind-set of change means that HR professionals model and encourage leaders to constantly learn, unlearn, improve and accept the inevitability of change.

A pattern means that a new culture is created. We have found that organizations are more likely to change their culture when they begin the culture discussion by focusing on customers outside the company and what the company wants to be known for by their best customers. The changes employees and organizations make inside can and should be clearly and directly linked to the expectations of customers. Change is not an idle hazing meant to distract employees, but a means of serving customers. When inside change links to external expectations, HR programs (staffing, training, compensation, communication) and leader behaviors occur because they deliver value to the marketplace. HR professionals who ensure that internal changes are linked to external expectations see change less as an event and more as a pattern or culture.

In our research on competencies for successful HR professionals, the ability to manage change and be a cultural steward were among the most critical differentiators for an effective HR professional. Change happens and it matters. By following these three principles, HR professionals can help employees discover the excitement and energy that change brings.

Workforce Management, June 9, 2008, p. 22-23 –

——————————————————————————–

Verbal Abuse: the latest management strategy

Blog for Workforce Management 3 12 08:  This blog was in response to Workforce Magazine’s Editor’s Blog Site:  http://www.workforce.com/wpmu/bizmgmt/about/March 7th, 2008

Verbal Abuse as a Workforce Strategy

I’ve worked few a few screamers in my career—and for some over-the-top, intimidating bullies, too. The worst one was this short, stocky guy who used to love to stand and glare, clenched fists at his side as if he was ready to punch you. He didn’t scream much, but when he did, it was a full-on string of your typical obscenities delivered in a full-throated roar.

As a bad manager, he was the complete and total package.

All of this came back to mind as I was reading a story in the Rocky Mountain News about a former assistant for Dish Network who was dismissed from the company after six years of work and is suing “because of alleged gender discrimination and retaliation. Her claims of a hostile work environment and breach of contract were dismissed this week.” The jury trial is continuing on the remaining causes of action before a U.S. District Court in Denver.

According to the newspaper account, a “Dish Network executive screamed at his assistant Sharon Baker numerous times and in one instance called her a ‘f—— stupid b—-,’ jurors were told in the closing arguments of a federal discrimination case.

The satellite TV company failed to act on Baker’s complaints and ignored its own policies prohibiting crude behavior among managers, Thomas Arckey, one of Baker’s attorneys, told jurors. Instead, top executives routinely engaged in screaming, swearing and sexual jokes, he said. Arckey described the company’s ‘trademark’ policy as ‘hear no evil, see no evil, investigate no evil, correct no evil.’ ”

As stunning as all of that is, what’s even more amazing is the response from Dish Network. It essentially comes down to this: Yes, we were verbally abusive to her, but we didn’t discriminate because we’re verbally abusive to everyone.

 “In the company’s closing arguments, Dish Network attorney Meghan Martinez attacked Baker’s credibility, maintained there was no evidence of gender discrimination and told the jury that the case simply ‘doesn’t belong here, and you know that,’ ” according to the Rocky Mountain News story. “Martinez acknowledged that Dish Network executives, including Baker’s boss, Executive Vice President Michael Kelly, yelled and swore at times. But she said the screaming equally was ‘male to male, executive on executive,’ and that Kelly denied ever using the word ‘b—-.’ Martinez also said witness testimony showed Baker ‘uses profanity and is comfortable with it.’ ”

There you have it: verbal abuse as an accepted part of a company’s workforce management strategy. In other words, Dish Network embraces a corporate culture where it is OK to swear and verbally abuse people in the workplace, and it’s not discriminatory to do it since everyone there does it all the time.

I’ve written a lot about boorish behavior from the top boss and a workplace where sexual harassment was tolerated and ignored, but I’ve never seen one where out-and-out verbal abuse was condoned and defended at the highest levels.

I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I predict that Dish Network won’t have much legal success in defending verbal abuse as an acceptable workforce practice. It will be interesting to see how the nearly all-female Denver jury will see it.

The question I have is:  How long has “verbal abuse” been the accepted culture at Dish Network?

During the hiring process, are prospective employees made aware of the “accepted culture?” If they are, does this mean they have made a contractual agreement of accepting employment knowing they will be subjected to “workplace verbal abuse?”

Turning the page on these questions, my first thoughts are of course with the formal leadership of the organization.

How is this culture affecting productivity, systems improvement, financial performance, the ability to hire and retain good people, the ongoing engagement and commitment of employees to the vision and goals of Dish Network?

Leaders or those we place into formal leadership positions, are responsible for facilitating understanding in the organization. Karl Weick (1979) speaks of this as Sensemaking.

Formal leaders’ influencing role in Sensemaking is: 

  1.  To set the social relations that are encouraged and discouraged
  2.  To set the identities that are valued or derogated within the organization (Weick,2008). 

So, what is it saying for these Leaders, if they have encouraged the social relations of “verbal abuse?”Is the Dish Network Identity one of “little respect for the value of human interaction?”Another concept of Sensemaking for Leaders is to facilitate “Respectful Interaction: trust, trustworthiness, and self-respect” In other words, the Leadership of Dish Network and those who accept to stay in this environment may not possess self-respect. If they don’t possess it, how can they give it to others?Living within this type of environment is toxic to our humanity, both within and without the business environment.How will Dish Network’s organizational culture change even if the Leadership doesn’t intend to change it?  The article in Rocky Mountain News has possibly started a RADICAL CHANGE EVENT from an external source moving within and into the organization.

Radical events can be one large scale action through an external event or an internal event OR a series of small events occurring in rapid succession creating radical change (Plowman et al. 2008)

If Dish Network were going to change its culture, despite the formal Leadership, it will be done through employee action, one at time in a continuous process that would allow for a Radical Impact for change to occur.

So, Let’s believe on the integrity of a few folks  to encourage”Respectful Interaction” within Dish Network.

gay