Speak Truth to Power

Honesty is simple, but it is not always easy.  Among the hardest things a change leader or project manager has to do, are those conversations that relay uncomfortable truths.

It is not just because we don’t like the discomfort of it all, or because we cherish our popularity; there is a real risk that, if it goes badly, the conversation can derail the whole project or initiative.

Hijacked Agenda

Giving people bad or uncomfortable or unwanted news can flip their focus from the rational to the irrational, and their response can become unpredictable.  The one message can become the whole deal for them.  And if they have sufficient power, they can hijack a whole agenda.

Instant Change

The military has some of the very best management ideas.  I wrote about how to apply the principles of the OODA Loop to management in my first book, the Management Models Pocketbook.  I will also be writing about BLUF in my new book, Brilliant Influence.

The military has also got the answer to creating near instant changes in mind-set.  Most of my readers have probably seen one or two of the many war films that start with new recruits arriving at boot camp.  Memorable films for me include: Full Metal Jacket, An Officer and a Gentleman and Platoon.  Some of my readers may be in or retired from the forces and know the truth of it.

One thing is for sure: new recruits are all treated the same and all are subjected to a regime that marks a clear distinction from their former civilian life.  Institutional food and clothing; rigidly enforced rules, some of which seem arbitrary (and some may be); and a focus on the group over the individual are all designed to do three things:

1. Create a tangible break from what came before
2. Establish authority and compliance
3. Strip away some of the norms of previous behaviour, to make way for new norms

How does this apply to organisational change?

Kurt Lewin anyone?  This sounds to me very much like “unfreezing” – the first phase of Lewin’s “Freeze Phases” model for creating change.  More a “flash thaw” I suppose.

I learn one powerful thing from this.  In this environment, nobody lays out the changes to the new recruits and asks them to embrace the change.  There’s no attempt to win over minds and hearts.

We often think “change attitudes and behaviours will follow”.  I think this example serves to illustrate that the opposite can work too.  After thousands of years of organised military forces, we know that ”change behaviours and attitudes will follow” can also work.

Still Curious

A while back, I wrote the post “Diving into Change” where I suggested that we can all do with diving in feet first sometimes.  I wonder if the same is true organisationally.  I wonder when ”change behaviours and attitudes will follow” is right in organisations.  I wonder how many broken organisations might benefit from some courage in this direction.

The “so what?”

Is this an option for you?  Should it be?  At least consider it.
If you do, however, be sure you put as much planning into it as you can – it could be a one-shot process.

True Vision or just Good Words

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the poverty of language used in corporate environments.  People seem to swing to one of two extremes:

• Complex, jargon heavy language, wrapped in convoluted syntax
• Simplistic statements that tend to hyperbole and cliché

On the one hand, authors of management drivel seem to think that the more jargon they can use and the longer their sentences, then the more intelligent they will appear.  Either that, or they are afraid that they will expose their own weak understanding of a complex situation, if they tried to explain it clearly.

On the other hand, some authors take the commendable “keep it simple, stupid” message to extremes.  They move from simple to simplistic in one smooth sashay and, in so doing, lose the meaning or distort the truth.

Whatever happened to style and structure?

Yes; I am aware that, on this topic, I am sitting in a glass house, throwing stones outwards.

It’s a Vision Thing

Many organisations have picked up on the need to create a compelling vision to drive their change programmes.  Some project managers have even embraced the value of articulating their project goal with a clear vision.

The problem is that most vision statements contain no vision.  They are often crafted by a committee, following a “visioning” workshop, or are put together in a rush, as an afterthought.

For a vision statement to have vision, it must create images in our minds.  Let’s look at two versions of a powerful vision statement and see how they compare on those stakes.

Version 1.

“I have a vision for an ethnically diverse society in which everybody has full equality of opportunity and where we can harness the synergies of a multi-ethnic workforce, collaborating to construct an enhanced society.”

Version 2.

“I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!”

No prizes for knowing whose is the latter version.  The question is, how inspired would people have been by version 1?  It cover all the right topics, but it is devoid of the vision it claims.

.

Let us Compare the Two

What is it that Dr King was able to do with his rhetoric?  I am no expert, but it is clear that the real difference is that King’s words create images in our mind and sensations in our bodies.

Phrases like “sit down together at a table of freedom” and “sweltering with the heat of injustice” and “little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls” lodge in your mind and cannot be moved.

Move People

If you are trying to move people, I think your language needs an emotional charge; I think it needs to be precise; and I think it needs to engage the senses.

It seems to me that, when thinking about creating change, and the need to move people’s attitudes from one place to another, it is no coincidence that the word “move” has two meanings.

I can move you physically and I can move you emotionally.  Can you move your people from one culture to another, or from one way of doing things to another, without also moving them emotionally?

How wonderful language is.  Let’s use it to its fullest extent.

The “so what?”

Take a look at the words you use to describe your project and the vision you have created for your change programme.  Does it move you?  Do the words craft magic, conjour images, entrance and captivate?  If not, you have a job to do.

Remember, the pen is mightier than the keyboard.  Take a fine writing implement and a fresh sheet of paper.

Photo by Tnarik
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tnarik/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Why Handling Resistance is like Sharing Pie

It’s commonly said that the two most feared workplace situations are networking and presentations.  I wonder if most managers don’t anticipate something else with still greater trepidation: resistance.

Resistance is a constant feature of projects, change programmes, day-to-day negotiations, sales and even presentations.  Most people view it a sign of failure: failure to communicate, failure to manage stakeholders, failure to plan.

Resistance ≠ Failure

In fact, resistance is not a sign of failure: it is inevitable.  So we need a toolkit of techniques to deal with it (maybe in the form of a handy Pocketbook*).

One of may favourites is is rather like sharing a pizza, or a pie.

It’s Easier to Build Agreement upon Agreement

It’s a pretty thankless task trying to get agreement from someone who disagrees with you.  It is far easier to start from a base of agreement.

So start by splitting the problem up:

“You don’t agree with my conclusions: is it the findings you disagree with or the way I interpreted them?”

“The findings are fine.  Your analysis is wrong.”

“Okay, so we’re agreed on the findings.  Now, you don’t like my analysis: is it the methodology you disagree with, or the way I carried it out?”

“You worked through it fine,
but you should never have taken that approach.”

“Good, so let’s discuss what other approaches I could take.”

The Process is Straightforward

Continually try to divide the scope of your disagreement into two or three chunks and establish which chunk or chunks you can agree on.  What this does is build rapport – it shows both you and your resister what you have in common and gives you a shared base to work on your differences.

At the same time it demonstrates to your resister that their disagreement with you is not all-encompassing.

What if they say “I reject everything you say”?

It happens.  You ask:

“You don’t agree with my conclusions: is it the findings you disagree with or the way I interpreted them?”

and they answer:

“Both.  I disagree with your findings and
how you interpreted them.”

You the do the sensible thing and say:

“Okay, let’s look at my findings one by one and see which you agree with and which you do not.”

… and they soon let you know that they disagree with all of your findings.

We will set aside the question of whether or not there is a “hidden” objection buried here, and that they have a deeper, more fundamental concern and are hiding behind.  Let’s consider the scenario that they really do reject every scrap of what you present.

How can you find a Tiny Slice of Pie to Agree on?

My favourite slicing method is this:

“Well, we certainly do have very different perspective on this issue.  Can we at least agree that this is an important topic and set aside some time to work on it together?”

If they do agree, you have the start of agreement and a way to move forward.  If they do not agree, then they are saying that the matter is not important to them, and perhaps you can get permission to move forward with others.

The “so what?”

Rule 1 when dealing with resistance: stay respectful.  You will rarely face total disagreement.  Look for a start to an agreement and build out from there.

* A handy pocketbook on handling resistance?  What a coincidence.  Management Pocketbooks have  commissioned me to write The Handling Resistance Pocketbook, due out in autumn 2010.  In the meantime, The Management Models Pocketbook is available from all good booksellers.

For occasional tips and news of new titles, follow @ManaPocketbooks on Twitter.

Organisational Change: Creating the will to change

When calling for participation in organisational change, your first job is to move people… emotionally.

Push and Pull

There are two ways to move people emotionally, just as there are two ways to move something physically: you can apply a push, or a pull.  Let’s look at them one at a time.

Crank up the Pain

The first step is to create a push.  Most people are comfortable as the are and to change is uncomfortable.  The perceived pain of making the change exceeds the pleasure of achieving it.  This is rarely because the pain is greater – it is simply more imminent.  It’s like standing in front of a hut in the foot-hills of the Himalayas.  Stand close enough to the hut, and it will eclipse Everest and seem taller.

So the fastest solution is to match and exceed the pain of changing by demonstrating the pain of not-changing.  You need to show that not changing will lead to problems that exceed the discomfort of changing.

“If it ain’t broke …”
………………..         ……………“don’t fix it!”

This is one of the commonest things you will hear in times of change.  And it is really a very sound policy.  Your task is to demonstrate that it is broke.

Don’t Overdo the Pain

However, once you get people moving, it does not seem very ethical to continue to motivate people with what amounts to a tactic of fear.  It’s time to change strategy entirely.  Turn on the pleasure.

The next step is pleasure.  Now apply a pull by conjuring up a compelling vision of the future.

“I have a dream”

Offering positive reasons for the change is a more sustainable, ethical and ultimately more powerful approach to winning support.  People need meaning in life and this is you opportunity to spell out a real purpose and benefits to the change.  This will create a pull that will draw people towards the future you spell out.

There is something essential about how to articulate your vision: you have to be able to move people.  This requires that your vision is more than just words.  It has to have  . . .

. . .  vision

The “so what?”

To create organisational change, you must spell out why it is necessary and you must show people what there is to gain.  Both are necessary and sequence is important.