The challenge of culture change and how to bring it about is a topic most CEO’s and GM’s will have to grapple with at some point in their career, if not for all of it. These days, your ability to change an organisations culture is a factor in rising through the ranks of ‘C’ level and GM roles.
It is no surprise that there are therefore many perspectives on the topic of culture change. One of the common ones is whether culture is caught or taught and another is whether you should mandate culture across the business or allow each division, department, team and individual to choose their culture. In this two part blog we will look at both of those perspectives, starting with caught versus taught.
Caught Versus Taught
Ultimately culture is caught. New employees are told ‘how things are around here’ by their colleagues and their team-leaders. But we are talking about culture change. If you are looking to change your culture it means that there is something unwanted about the current culture and that's the culture people are catching.
In culture change there is a phase where both cultures exist. One will be in reality and the other will be a concept. As a leader your job is to guide people to the culture you are looking for. Yes you can be an icon of the new culture and hope that people will catch it, but if you are in an organisation of hundreds or more you will find that a difficult prospect.
Some CEO’s subscribe to the ‘Build and they shall come’ approach to culture. This approach assumes that if the vision is so compelling and the values so motivating that people will adopt them. The problem with this view is that your existing culture has a life of its own and like all life-forms it doesn't want to die. It also exists in habits people don’t know they have, expectations that leaders won’t even realise are counter-cultural until they have to explore them, and practices and policies that have been around so long that they aren't in the manual any more.
I call this the culture buffer. Unless you are building a culture for a new business start-up you will be facing this, and the older and more established the business the tougher the buffer is.
So do I say taught over caught for culture change? Well it depends on what you mean by taught. I have seen programmes that seem more like indoctrination because the delivery has gone so far as to define the 24 expected behaviours and 32 competencies that every role is expected to adhere to in order to live the culture. This approach makes it impossible to be the unique person that your were actually employed to be so it is soon ignored as it just too hard.
In my view the amount of catching and the amount of teaching is a balancing act that depends on your existing culture (how entrenched it is, how far removed from the culture you need etc), the degree of change that is required to make it happen and then the stage that you are going through e.g. you will do more teaching in the early stages of rolling out a culture, but less when it is clear that influential people have caught the virus and are out there passing it round.
The teaching should be done in a way that allows people to align the best of themselves, guides them when choices are to be made and encourages them to strive on your behalf. Involvement is everything in the teaching phase. One session on one day will not be enough. You need multiple involvement activities, strong communication channels, managers that change processes to align them to the culture (so that culture truly becomes ‘how we do things around here’) and leaders that live it, integrate it in to every vision, business plan and strategic objective.
Teach it, involve in it, align to it and then you can rely on it being caught.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Do you have a hidden agenda?
How many times have you heard that you or your organisation has a hidden agenda? If you are in any form of leadership position I would be surprised if you’d not heard this before. If you are not at the top of your companies tree I am sure you've heard conversations about what 'management' are doing behind the scenes.
It can be really frustrating as a leader when you hear this if you think you don't. Many managers just ignore it when they hear it and dismiss it as the ‘normal scepticism that employees have for management’.
When I hear it I treat it as a clue to the culture of the organisation.
So before you ignore that ‘scepticism’ let me ask you whether it is possible that you actually do have a hidden agenda…….unintentionally?
Many organisations have active yet unofficial ‘information networks’. These networks aren't communication networks, they are more akin to the skin mounted monitors used in hospitals. They don't tell the doctor what the patient thinks but whether the patient’s heart rate has risen or when their breathing changes for example. They let the doctor know how the patient is feeling.
The information networks in your company are extremely sensitive to changes in management activity, just like the hospital monitors. When regular meeting patterns exist and there are no unusual comings and goings they tell the people in your organisation that 'everything is the same'.
But when extra or unusual meetings begin happen, consultants start to arrive, or senior team 'awaydays' take place, they are noted by the networks and the signal that 'something different is happening' goes out.
Especially if you have not said what they are happening for.
Riding on the back of those signals is that most human of conditions; speculation.
In the void of an unintentional hidden agenda people will naturally fill the gap based on past experience e.g. what happened last time the management team disappeared for days and had many closed door meeting (was that a structure change by any chance?).
From your perspective as a manager you are doing management work. You are 'planning' or 'reviewing' or even 'thinking about things', 'haven't decided anything yet' or 'have nothing to declare at this stage'.
What that means to the information network is that activity has increased without a similar increase in communication. If you haven’t said what is going on then what you are doing is, in the truest meaning of the word, ‘hidden’
Be aware that a 'hidden agenda' is often a sign that your people are filling a communication void with speculation. It can therefore be a clue to the health of your routine information channels; it may mean that they are blocked, or too loose with information, not delivering consistently or uninformative, used sporadically when you do have an agenda or a one way transfer of information. You may find that it is a combination of these in different streams of the business.
But don’t ignore the clue or the next time you stand up and say something in all honesty you will still be accused of having a hidden agenda.
It can be really frustrating as a leader when you hear this if you think you don't. Many managers just ignore it when they hear it and dismiss it as the ‘normal scepticism that employees have for management’.
When I hear it I treat it as a clue to the culture of the organisation.
So before you ignore that ‘scepticism’ let me ask you whether it is possible that you actually do have a hidden agenda…….unintentionally?
Many organisations have active yet unofficial ‘information networks’. These networks aren't communication networks, they are more akin to the skin mounted monitors used in hospitals. They don't tell the doctor what the patient thinks but whether the patient’s heart rate has risen or when their breathing changes for example. They let the doctor know how the patient is feeling.
The information networks in your company are extremely sensitive to changes in management activity, just like the hospital monitors. When regular meeting patterns exist and there are no unusual comings and goings they tell the people in your organisation that 'everything is the same'.
But when extra or unusual meetings begin happen, consultants start to arrive, or senior team 'awaydays' take place, they are noted by the networks and the signal that 'something different is happening' goes out.
Especially if you have not said what they are happening for.
Riding on the back of those signals is that most human of conditions; speculation.
In the void of an unintentional hidden agenda people will naturally fill the gap based on past experience e.g. what happened last time the management team disappeared for days and had many closed door meeting (was that a structure change by any chance?).
From your perspective as a manager you are doing management work. You are 'planning' or 'reviewing' or even 'thinking about things', 'haven't decided anything yet' or 'have nothing to declare at this stage'.
What that means to the information network is that activity has increased without a similar increase in communication. If you haven’t said what is going on then what you are doing is, in the truest meaning of the word, ‘hidden’
Be aware that a 'hidden agenda' is often a sign that your people are filling a communication void with speculation. It can therefore be a clue to the health of your routine information channels; it may mean that they are blocked, or too loose with information, not delivering consistently or uninformative, used sporadically when you do have an agenda or a one way transfer of information. You may find that it is a combination of these in different streams of the business.
But don’t ignore the clue or the next time you stand up and say something in all honesty you will still be accused of having a hidden agenda.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Does your change have a voice?
We live in a world where you cannot escape multiple forms of communication. From TV, radio, roadside adverts, jingles and now social media like twitter, it seems like everyone is communicating. But it doesn't always seem that way in the workplace. One of the biggest issues for most employees, particularly during change, is lack of communication.
When I work with clients on a change programme I always advocate for the creation of a communication strategy. Like all strategies the aim is to give clarity and guidance and to help managers make decisions around their communications through the length of the programme. Wherever I can I take the clients managers through my ‘leading through change’ workshop so that they understand why communication is vital to the success of any change.
Armed with a strategy and tuned to why then need one you always hope that it flows from there.
It often doesn't, so thought I would share some of the things that I have come across that affect or limit the benefit of communication during change.
The ‘Tell’ based strategy:
For some organisations and managers communication style can seem like form of instruction: it goes something like ‘I will tell you something, you will listen to me, then you go off and do it’. This results is a one way approach to building a communication strategy which ends up built around town hall announcements and e-mail notifications. With this form of communication strategy it is often a surprise to the organisation when they don’t get the result they were looking for. I hear ‘but I gave them the new way of working with the announcement, so why aren't they doing it?’
The thing about change is that most people struggle with the lack of control that can come with a feeling that it is being ‘done to you’. That is bad enough without the communication strategy actually saying quite clearly that it is! Change is delivered through the capturing of hearts and minds (we left the whips and chains behind after we finished building the pyramids). Feedback and involvement are therefore vital aspects of your comms strategy to minimise the feeling of lack of control that the individual has, and the engaging of their heart and mind to follow the direction you are giving them.
“There’s nothing to say yet’:
The key to this one is the word ‘yet’. Many managers struggle to communicate unless a decision has been made or when a key milestone has been completed. For some it is a need to be ‘right’ (or maybe not to be wrong) and for others they find it hard to write or talk unless it is ‘factual’. This results in large gaps of non communication. These gaps are filled by rumour, gossip and ultimately with worry. People can imagine the worst very easily. If you've told them that change is about to happen and then say very little it is only natural to assume that what you are planning is not good for them (if it was you’d say, right?).
Change is a journey, so your strategy should reflect that and once you've started to communicate, continue to do so.
The CEO as sole communicator:
In most organisations of any scale there are many managers and lots of hierarchy. Whether the change is structural or cultural it requires leaders to lead at all levels. If the change is structural and across the whole company, every division, department and team will have a leader who needs to make the structure work. If its culture change you are looking for, then its the local leader and their approach that will make the culture work or not.
When I work with clients on a change programme I always advocate for the creation of a communication strategy. Like all strategies the aim is to give clarity and guidance and to help managers make decisions around their communications through the length of the programme. Wherever I can I take the clients managers through my ‘leading through change’ workshop so that they understand why communication is vital to the success of any change.
Armed with a strategy and tuned to why then need one you always hope that it flows from there.
It often doesn't, so thought I would share some of the things that I have come across that affect or limit the benefit of communication during change.
The ‘Tell’ based strategy:
For some organisations and managers communication style can seem like form of instruction: it goes something like ‘I will tell you something, you will listen to me, then you go off and do it’. This results is a one way approach to building a communication strategy which ends up built around town hall announcements and e-mail notifications. With this form of communication strategy it is often a surprise to the organisation when they don’t get the result they were looking for. I hear ‘but I gave them the new way of working with the announcement, so why aren't they doing it?’
The thing about change is that most people struggle with the lack of control that can come with a feeling that it is being ‘done to you’. That is bad enough without the communication strategy actually saying quite clearly that it is! Change is delivered through the capturing of hearts and minds (we left the whips and chains behind after we finished building the pyramids). Feedback and involvement are therefore vital aspects of your comms strategy to minimise the feeling of lack of control that the individual has, and the engaging of their heart and mind to follow the direction you are giving them.
“There’s nothing to say yet’:
The key to this one is the word ‘yet’. Many managers struggle to communicate unless a decision has been made or when a key milestone has been completed. For some it is a need to be ‘right’ (or maybe not to be wrong) and for others they find it hard to write or talk unless it is ‘factual’. This results in large gaps of non communication. These gaps are filled by rumour, gossip and ultimately with worry. People can imagine the worst very easily. If you've told them that change is about to happen and then say very little it is only natural to assume that what you are planning is not good for them (if it was you’d say, right?).
Change is a journey, so your strategy should reflect that and once you've started to communicate, continue to do so.
The CEO as sole communicator:
In most organisations of any scale there are many managers and lots of hierarchy. Whether the change is structural or cultural it requires leaders to lead at all levels. If the change is structural and across the whole company, every division, department and team will have a leader who needs to make the structure work. If its culture change you are looking for, then its the local leader and their approach that will make the culture work or not.
So why would all the communication come solely from the CEO? Is the CEO the only one with answers? The only one that knows what happens? In control of everything? You've got to hope that's not true, even if they were brought in to make changes.
A good change communication strategy should have a role for every manager and the delivery will role out through every manager. The communication should be from the leadership of the business (with occasional keynotes at key points by the CEO when necessary). That way you re-enforce the managers as managers when the change is complete. If not then it wont be a surprise if nothing ever happens until the CEO says so.
The 'Big Bang & Fizzle'
Some organisations are great at starting things. A big launch, red carpets, fanfares, handouts, lots of promises and then…….well that's it! Nothing else is said. No updates, no debate, no engagement, no recognising quick wins, no celebration of success, no nothing. Needless to say that's often the real result too!
If you get your organisation used to this style they will very soon become sceptical of any big announcement. In fact they become sceptical of any announcement. Why would anyone believe you if you did’t really follow through on the previous one, don’t show the results that you promised and didn't deliver. The stock market wouldn't believe you so why would your internal stake-holders?
The big launch is great if you have something you want to get people excited about so that they take a punt and come on the ride with you. But there has to be a ride to get on to. You need follow through and often that's just reminding people that the change is still happening, that you are getting there and the results are starting to come. Its less fun, less exciting but its sometime’s it's the less thrilling parts of change that make it stick.
So give your change a voice, in fact give it multiple voices, managers and staff, and just like the current social media trend get them all talking all the way from the start of your change until the end.
A good change communication strategy should have a role for every manager and the delivery will role out through every manager. The communication should be from the leadership of the business (with occasional keynotes at key points by the CEO when necessary). That way you re-enforce the managers as managers when the change is complete. If not then it wont be a surprise if nothing ever happens until the CEO says so.
The 'Big Bang & Fizzle'
Some organisations are great at starting things. A big launch, red carpets, fanfares, handouts, lots of promises and then…….well that's it! Nothing else is said. No updates, no debate, no engagement, no recognising quick wins, no celebration of success, no nothing. Needless to say that's often the real result too!
If you get your organisation used to this style they will very soon become sceptical of any big announcement. In fact they become sceptical of any announcement. Why would anyone believe you if you did’t really follow through on the previous one, don’t show the results that you promised and didn't deliver. The stock market wouldn't believe you so why would your internal stake-holders?
The big launch is great if you have something you want to get people excited about so that they take a punt and come on the ride with you. But there has to be a ride to get on to. You need follow through and often that's just reminding people that the change is still happening, that you are getting there and the results are starting to come. Its less fun, less exciting but its sometime’s it's the less thrilling parts of change that make it stick.
So give your change a voice, in fact give it multiple voices, managers and staff, and just like the current social media trend get them all talking all the way from the start of your change until the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)