Posts Tagged ‘change’

Polarizing

Saturday, March 23rd, 2013

At the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Sen. Mitch McConnell rolled out a 7-foot, 3-inch stack of paper wrapped in a red ribbon.  This stack purports to contain the 20,000 pages of regulations created to flesh out the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“Obamacare”).  Regardless of your politics, the Red Tape Tower makes an impression.

Since its unveiling, the stack of paper has become quite popular.  A quick web search reveals instagram photos, facebook posts, Average Joes posing with the tower, and behind-the-scenes action sequences showing its movement backstage at CPAC.  The tower even has a twitter handle: @theredtapetower.

Emotionally-engaging symbols shape the conversation.

Does the symbol dramatically oversimplify a complex topic?  Absolutely.  Is that the point?  Absolutely.

Mitch is trying to move hearts and minds.  He has struck a resonant chord with some folks.  There is pent-up frustration with the ACA of 2010, and the tower has served as a sort of megaphone for some of those frustrated people, a way to “speak out” quickly, easily, and visually.  “Click to share” takes away the need to communicate complicated thoughts on the topic in prose.

Of course not everyone reacts favorably to the Red Tape Tower.  But Sen. McConnell wasn’t going for 100% “likes”; he was framing the conversation.

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

1 Comment »Tags: , , , ,

A Sugar-Coated Satan Sandwich

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011

This past Tuesday, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, voted in favor of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (the “debt deal”), but he wasn’t happy about it.  He described it as a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich.”

He’s not the only one eating a big helping of nastiness; frontline workers in many organizations are gagging on their own Satan sandwiches.

Oftentimes people ask me what I do for a living.  I respond with a question, “Do you like having change shoved down your throat?”  The answer: “No!  Does anyone?”  Then I respond that I help leaders in organizations not do that.

A leader’s first instinct when faced with dissent may be to crack down on the rebellion: “In these desperate times, you’re with me, or you’re against me.  I need everyone toeing the line so we can get through this quickly.”  But when the threat of coercion diminishes, frontline engagement and commitment wane.

Some leaders hire a change management consultant because they want their stubborn employees to get in line.  “Can you get those intransigent holdouts to see reason?  Maybe if you make it look better, they’ll get on board.”

But no matter how much sugar we put on that Satan sandwich, it won’t go down easy for Rep. Cleaver, because it isn’t his sandwich.

Owned solutions are better than optimal solutions.

Leaders must engage their teams early and often, to drive higher levels of commitment.  When people get their grubby fingerprints all over a solution, they own it.  When it only has the leader’s grubby fingerprints on it, no one wants to eat it.

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

9 Comments »Tags: , , , ,

Pablum – The Silent Killer

Sunday, April 3rd, 2011

“Pablum,” he said.

I’m fairly proud of my vocabulary, but I was embarrassed to admit I didn’t know what that word meant.  “It’s mush,” he said, “It’s tasteless, and there’s nothing there to chew on.”

I was at Guidant Corporation, and we were being acquired.  He was a VP in charge of integrating the two companies’ sales forces, and he was describing the messages we were producing to educate our employees.

We then had a conversation about whether these messages were even worth publishing.  Would we lose credibility by saying nothing real and nothing new?  Would people be less likely to pay attention next time, assuming we had nothing meaningful to say?

That was 2005.  In the intervening years, I’ve discovered how rare it is to have a leader ask such questions, to demand more than safe and mushy messaging.  Many leaders navigating their organizations through disruptive change don’t have that same instinct, and end up communicating either Pollyanna messages (“Guys, isn’t this great?  The future is sunshine and roses!”) or messages that are so general, no one understands how the changes will affect them.  In those organizations, the messages are usually very well-written– but good writing and good communication are two different things.

Fast forward to 2011…

Jodi Underwood, the Director of HR at Citizens Energy Group in Indianapolis, helped me develop a model for communicating effectively during times of change:

The model has two axes.

The x-axis reflects a message’s level of authenticity.  Oftentimes, leaders assume that “safe” messaging is the safer route, because they can avoid controversy and tough topics.  But it isn’t safer.  “Safe” messages generate boredom and disengagement, which are riskier in the long run.

The y-axis reflects a message’s level of specificity.  Sometimes during an organizational change, leaders can’t be as specific as they’d like, because the details just haven’t been worked out yet.  In those cases, I advise leaders to start figuring out the details that matter to stakeholders, as quickly as possible.

Should leaders then wait to communicate until all the details have been hammered out, and politically it is feasible to speak more plainly?

Absolutely not.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and people will fill the communications void with all kinds of creative scenarios, none of them good.  Communicate now, with what you have, but always fight for more authenticity and more specificity.

The gravitational pull of planet Status Quo drags us up, and to the left, on the model.  We must actively invest energy into moving down and to the right.  But it’s worth the investment.  Real and detailed messages stimulate new ideas and questions in people’s minds.  They open up lines of communication and invite others into a dialogue.  They drive deeper engagement, which leads to higher levels of commitment and less resistance to change.

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

6 Comments »Tags: , , ,

Uncomfortable

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

I run regularly.  Since my knees are deteriorating, I’m experimenting with new ways to reduce the shock to my joints.  I’ve learned that barefoot (flat-footed) running actually produces less impact than standard heel-toe running in athletic shoes.  I’ve been running for several weeks using a gentler, flat-footed style, and I’ve had some good results (less knee pain, building distance, increasing speed).  But this new style is incredibly uncomfortable, and I’m tempted to abandon it.

Each time I run I find myself tensing up my shoulders and hands.  I can’t relax, and it takes all my concentration just to keep my rebellious feet from going back to their old habits.  When my mind wanders, I slip back into a heel-toe rhythm, with damaging long-term effects (sore knees, fewer runs, knee surgery).

I have a couple of clients who are trying new moves in their leadership.  Those new moves are proving uncomfortable for them.  One is trying to be less controlling and give his team more freedom to choose priorities and solve problems on their own.  Another is trying to be more assertive, making necessary but unpopular decisions without consensus from all her team members.

Both of these leaders are in danger of slipping back into old, comfortable rhythms. The first is tempted to start digging into the details of his subordinates’ work, fearing they must be hiding important information.  The second is tempted to second-guess her decisions when she encounters the (predictable) opposition.  If they slip, their organizations will suffer.

What can we do to preserve our gains and keep moving forward?

Burn the Ships. When Cortez landed in Mexico, he burned (well, actually scuttled) his ships to ensure there was no way his men could back out of the plan to conquer the Aztecs.  With our leadership moves, however, “burning the ships” isn’t as tangible.  We need to find ways to make it more likely that we will make good choices, day after day.  Both of my clients have told their teams about their new moves, expressed their commitment, articulated the reasons why their old moves weren’t working, and asked to be held accountable.  Those actions require courage, and they create support systems that pull leaders forward when they are tempted to turn back.

Get Feedback. Without insights from someone who has gone before us down our new path (a mentor or role model), or someone who can help us get where we want to go (a coach), we’re on our own.  We can muddle through as rugged individualists, but that isn’t our only option.  Coaching is helping my clients run with better form.

Measure Results. I’ve been encouraging my clients’ team members to clarify for their leaders how those new behaviors are contributing to the organization’s success.  Clearly seeing the benefits of new moves helps leaders overcome the discomfort.

Run Faster. This one may seem counter-intuitive, but running more, and running faster, allows us to get through the discomfort quicker.  The more we practice our new moves, the more adept we become, and the more natural the behaviors feel.

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

13 Comments »Tags: , , ,

Story Time

Saturday, March 6th, 2010

Recently I helped a client’s executives craft key messages about a disruptive change they were implementing. It struck me that the change was complex, the messaging was complex, and that the organization’s employees were going to be lost and confused.

So I drew a picture on the white board and told a story…


Once upon a time there were two valiant knights, named I.T. and Biz. One wielded a sword and shield; the other a bow and arrow. They had a very successful year protecting the local village from marauding ogres [representing the successes of the past year- note the pile of green ogre heads]. They celebrated their banner year with several tankards of mead and then slept off their bender in the village square.

They were awakened late the next morning by the sound of enormous flapping wings. They looked up with bleary eyes and saw a massive form blocking out the sun. As their heads and eyes cleared, they saw the tail end of a monstrous red dragon pass over the treetops into the forest.

Our heroes sallied forth into the woods on a reconnaissance mission. After some investigation, they determined that not just one but three dragons (yikes!) had moved into the neighborhood. The first two were twin dragons. They were fat, mean, strong, and stupid. The older of the twin dragons had the curious name of Complex Business Processes. His younger twin brother went by the moniker Complex I.T. Systems. These two were strong and tough, but tended to be a bit sluggish and predictable. The third dragon was more dangerous. He was long, slippery, and treacherous. He had a poisonous bite, and some even claimed he had the power of invisibility. He had various names, including Culture, The Way We Do Things, and We’ve Always Done It That Way. When fighting the twin dragons, it was wise to keep an eye out for the third, which slipped behind opponents unnoticed until it was too late.

Our heroes continued their reconnaissance and discovered the dragons’ lair. In addition to the mounds of gold coins that filled their cave, the dragons guarded three precious treasures. The first treasure was Mercury’s Shoes, winged footwear that enabled their owner to travel with great speed, flying above the entanglements of the forest floor [representing productivity and efficiency]. The second treasure was the Cornucopia, which magically produced whatever its owner imagined [representing rapid product development]. The third treasure was the Crystal Ball, which enabled its owner to see things as they really were, and as they will be [representing business intelligence, for fact-based decision-making].

Fighting and decapitating ogres last year taught I.T. and Biz some valuable lessons, including that they were most effective when fighting alongside each other, since their separate weapons had maximum effect when combined. They would incorporate that learning into their plan to battle the dragons.

They expected to get charred, clawed, bit, and poisoned in their fight. But they reasoned that those wounds would heal, and they would then be stronger for having engaged in the battle. Our heroes believed in their hearts that the three magical treasures were worth the fight. And what was the alternative? To let the dragons consume the village, one damsel at a time?

Our brave knights had pure hearts and the strength of ten. They would not allow that ugly future to come to pass. So they took up arms, said their prayers, and entered the dragons’ lair.

…

After I told that story, there were several smiles around the room. Folks love a good fairy tale, and the executives now understand the key messages that had been dry and inscrutable before I put them into my Medieval blender. They also understand that the rest of the story is unwritten, and that the future of the village is in their hands.

The lesson? Stories and metaphors stick. The client’s employees are now talking about knights, dragons, and treasures. We’ve created a simple, common language that engages employees at all levels in the project’s strategy and vision.

VN:F [1.9.10_1130]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

3 Comments »Tags: , , ,