Demonstrating the value of change management (1)
A week or so ago, I was fortunate to be invited to speak at a change community forum initiated by three companies in the energy industry in Queensland (Energex, Ergon and SPARQ). The forum was a group of change managers working for each of the companies and the brief was to "challenge their thinking" and answer the question:
How do we as change practitioners demonstrate the value of managing change for the organisation to ensure efforts and leadership are channelled in making the changes stick?
The approach I took was to first conduct a gap analysis - understand where the change community was currently and where they wanted to get to. In order to bridge that gap my proposition was that there were a number of hurdles to get over if a community of change managers have any hope of demonstrating the value of change.This post deals with the first two barriers to demonstrating value of change and some initial thoughts on clearing them. Your thoughts and comments are as always most welcome and I am happy to integrate them into this post.
1) Fragmentation of disciplinary background.
Change managers come from a broad range of disciplines (pyschology, project management, training, communications, management). This diversity of background means that we each define "value of change management in different ways". More disturbingly, it is not uncommon to describe another change manager as "not a real change manager". This professional sniping and "othering" means that we often send mixed messages to our stakeholders.
How do we progress?
When we appreciate how we differ, then we can present a consistent message on the value of what we offer as a profession. Within the community we need to start speaking up for each other - talking up the benefits of people who have different backgrounds to ourselves.It also raises the issue of accreditation. Accreditation of change managers is a topic that I personally feel somewhat queasy about. My concern is that it caters for the lowest common denominator (LCD), and encourages a cookie-cutter approach to change managers. However, it does provide our stakeholders with a legitimacy that is currently missing. Our stakeholders hold accreditations and trust in the process. Whether you like the idea or not, it may a necessary step to demonstrating value. And while the catering for the LCD does not enthrall me - a consistent baseline is better than none. It provides a basis for which to improve.
2) Heterophily.
Heterophily is a concept popularised by innovation researcher Everett Rogers. Heterophily is the degree to which two individuals differ. A highly heterophilious organisation can be beneficial in that it the differences encourage creative friction and innovation. However, for change managers this can be challenging as we differ from our stakeholders. They don't understand us. We're not like them. Two tribes may not go to war, but they certainly dont have a shared understanding of what value is!
How do we progress?
At the risk of being heretical I say "throw out your change management jargon". What is the problem that the stakeholder is wanting to solve? Recast your tactics, strategies, diagnostics and artefacts in the language of your significant other. Focus on translation, then education.Often as change managers we fly in capes a-blowin, do our super hero magic and fly out again. Stop. Ground yourself - when you do great work let your stakeholders know what you have done, and then introduce your language. It is easier to understand the value of change managent after it has occurred.Next post I'll look at the last two barriers - the competing values within organisations, and the competing tensions between Business As Usual (BAU) change and transformational change.In the meantime, what are your thoughts - what else can we do as a community of change managers to progress these hurdles?