Managing a Succesful Culture Change
Is commitment really optional? If you are going to execute a meaningful culture change that sustains itself can you allow people to comply rather than commit over the long term? I don't think so.
In this era of individual freedom and "expression" I think we get carried away with our discomfort in saying these are our core values or how we do things and they are simply not optional, period. If you are a long term employee we will provide you with the resources you need to make a transition; such as our reasoning, training, coaching, and a reasonable transition period. I see a reasonable transition period assuming the other resources are in place as 3 to 6 months.
If you are a new employee I expect our recruitment and selection process to be clear enough that you understand and are prepared to embrace the culture day one.
I want to give employees a place where they can "join up" rather than just come to work, but in return I want and expect their commitment and engagement.
MH
In this era of individual freedom and "expression" I think we get carried away with our discomfort in saying these are our core values or how we do things and they are simply not optional, period. If you are a long term employee we will provide you with the resources you need to make a transition; such as our reasoning, training, coaching, and a reasonable transition period. I see a reasonable transition period assuming the other resources are in place as 3 to 6 months.
If you are a new employee I expect our recruitment and selection process to be clear enough that you understand and are prepared to embrace the culture day one.
I want to give employees a place where they can "join up" rather than just come to work, but in return I want and expect their commitment and engagement.
MH
Labels: Change, commitment, compliance
posted by Mark at New Paradigms LLC at
5:01 PM
8 Comments:
Hi Mark. Executing a major culture change is no small task and should be approached a priori with substantial planning. Additionally, those stakeholders principally involved should be engaged as partners in the transition first by communicating what the change is and how it will effect them; second, by soliciting stakeholder input and concerns; and third by providing education and clear communications regarding expectations. This will further augment buy-in by the stakeholders. Once a solid foundation is laid, then I would suggest that it is a bad idea to consider the commitment as optional. Leadership should be confident that the change will yield better results that the current paradigm or why else execute a new change? Further, it could confuse and undermine efficient transition if some stakeholders believe that there is a backdoor to the prior model. Rather, if change is needed it should be implemented fully and rapidly after proper preparation.
Mark
I believe that change will always be, to some extent, as disruptive to many people as it is exciting to others. However, I also believe that the onus is on the top leadership (word chosen advisedly) to use game-playing techniques to bring their top staff on board by engaging them in 'what-is, what-if and what-if-not' scenarios to help them see the real value of the proposed changes and elicit their input on how to bring about the changes and to 'help plot the course for the changes to be made - because they now have a piece of their own design in the new features. If any senior staff is unable to come on board at this time, give them time as you proceed, letting them know that they are valued, but that the new company will be moving according to schedule and, if they're not able to see the value, you will assist in their move to a more compatable environment - do this sincerely and you'll be far along with having a key change-making team in place!
Now, with your team enlarged by this level of management, go with them, group by group, to follow exactly the same process, level by level, throughout your company. When an employee honestly knows they are a team-member and not just a number on an employee list, you'll see excited cooperation. If you have union(s) to contend with, invite the leaders into the top planning sessions so they can provide any issues they might have and see the value to their people and be able to support where you're headed.
If your company is 'boss-oriented', good luck. I know some great head-hunters looking for good people. ;-)
Vaughn Akins
Mark,
I've always asked my associates to make commitments. They should commit to their teammates, their customers, and their company. Teammates are their coworkers and partner organizations that they are working with every day. The customers are why the business exists and are the sources of funds for paying salaries and operating expenses. The company is the organization that coordinates product/service delivery and provides the framework for internal and external relationships.
We spend so much of our lives working that the associates who do not commit to these basics are essentially wasting their lives. If they cannot commit to their teammates, their customers, and their company then they should find a place where they can commit. No hard feelings, they simply owe it to themselves and those around them to find an environment more suited to them.
Hi Mark,
Clearly if there is a major culture change in the works there is a pretty big problem that needs to be addressed.
If a person resists the change wants to keep things status quo, then you should part ways immediately. However, if the individual has alternative ideas and solutions that address the same issues as the proposed culture change, it may be worthwhile listening and incorporating some or all of their solutions.
Best regards,
Don
I wouldn't say your position is harsh necessarily as I'm not sure how long "a reasonable period" is to you, and just what "getting on board" is. Personally I feel more companies need to make a major shift in engaging their workers, improving their CS and acting as if they are getting paid for a reason. So a culture change would be a welcome breath of fresh air and employees should attempt to embrace it or find another position elsewhere!
Linda Fredrick
First, I think we need to be clear that for everything in life and work, commitment is optional. So I would focus on incorporating the necessary marketing, communications - with clarity and passion - documentation and training into the change plan to maximize the opportunity for the largest majority of folks to understand and volunteer to make the change happen.
As for those who refuse to engage, I expect they fall under my "Safety Shoe Rule". That rule is: if you have problems getting a person to comply to a simple basic requirement - like wearing safety shoes ... for safety - that issue never ever occurs in a vacuum, that person will never be a top performer with no issues and nothing but 5's and at-a-boys on their performance appraisal. Safety Shoe infractions are an indicator of some level of performance and behaviour issues that are disrupting your team, in ways little or big, every day.
So for those that don't quickly move forward and engage, I predict that it's not about the change, they weren't moving before the change, and they probably are a big reason the change needed to happen.
So circle back to the plan, before the implementation, and include training for team leads and supervisors and managers on how to manage performance and hold people accountable and work on getting the best out each person that reports to them, and commit to doing that as part of the change and communicate it to the front line.
Then the folks who are buying into the change will be rewarded for their effort and those who aren't will be helped up or out based on their behaviours and work, or lack thereof, not the change.
The problem with commitment, is that management most of the time communicates corporate values according to their own logic. They often think its universal logic and everybody in the company has to understand it the way they do. Nevertheless, this logic is personal. The key to cultural change lies in understanding the values and drives of the people in the company. When management is able to connect and able to communicate their goals in a logic that is coherent with the drives of their employees, commitment is a logical outcome.
So when your problem is a lack of commitment, in a simple way two problems may be in order:
1) The lack of commitment is the outcome of a lack of connection in the communication with the drives and values of the employees. In this case is pressure on commitment contra productive. You have to take a view steps back in order to make progress.
2) The lack of commitment is the outcome of changes in the way the work has to be done and the new demands do not comply with the drives and values of the employee. In this case change has led to a mismatch between the person and their work/environment. When management en employee understand each other, they can come to this conclusion quickly in an open dialog. Both will be motivated to find a better match for the employee within of outside the company.
To understand differences in drives and values, there are a lot of tests and theories based on Clare Graves, like Management Drives, Spiral Dynamics, etcetera.
When your staff is supported through a coach, goals are clarified. Sometimes, techniques are enhanced which produces better results for the organization. No one wants to be associated with a loser. If individuals realize that they are being valued by their employer, of course, they gain a larger stake in the organization. The constituents benefit, the funders benefit, the community benefits. Everyone gains substance, respect and all the warm fuzzies they can manage.
Warmest regards,
Kayte Connelly
kayte@bestprincipledsolutions.com
www.bestprincipledsolutions.com
The Legacy of Leaders is for them to produce other Leaders - not followers.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home