Reframing change leadership

A Framework for Senior Executives

I’ve had several people recently ask me this: “Andrew, can you do a deeper dive on your processes for getting groups to think - and act - strategically?”

So, here’s the first of these.

Strategy leads to one thing only.

I’ve led over 1000 strategic projects since 1999. Conservatively, 80% of these have led to one thing: change.

Change in what though?

Here are the top FOUR (with estimates of prevalence across all organisations on a 5-year time span):

1. Restructure (70% will do this in a five year period)
2. Technology or business process transformation (60 - 80%)
3. Culture shift and/or leadership / talent uplift? (70%)
4. Merger and acquisition (20 - 30%)

And, many organisations will have more than one of these active at any given time! So, is there an easy way to assist a whole organisation answer everyone’s questions honestly, and lead strategic change superbly?

I think so, so read on.

First, the good news: We’re all experts

There’s nothing threatening about a “change is the new normal” mindset, if you internalise the following beliefs. Reach each one of these TWICE and see if you agree with me:?

• We’re all experts at change. Successful people (and you reading this are, by default, a success) routinely anticipate and navigate change in their lives, continuously.
• Most change is evolution, not revolution. It is ‘building on’, not replacing.
• All change is a pretext to expand possibilities.
• The single biggest success factor is communication: ongoing, honest, multi-directional.
• Nobody knows all the answers at the outset. Be attracted to those who seek answers. Run a mile from those who claim to have them.

The FOUR things you want in every change process:?

So, with these beliefs well-anchored, here are the four outcomes I believe you should have:

A. Everyone understands why and how the change will occur

B. Team level leaders can articulate how it will affect their teams’ daily work?

C. Senior leaders can intelligently outline the strategic potential?

D. All leaders can apply their change leadership strengths?

Four outcomes give you exceptional results. Three outcomes yield adequate progress, but two or fewer signals trouble ahead.

Let’s dive into each of these, so we’re not talking theory, but reality.

A Real-World Example

The client: A mid-sized (1000 staff) public sector agency is reducing its executive structure from four groups to three. It’s a realignment of existing functions rather than a radical rethink. Why are they doing this? A typical combination of motives: improved public value, operational streamlining and cost-efficiency.

Instead of simply announcing the change, leadership engaged in a systematic approach to transformation. This is not a case study about HOW we got to the change concept, but how the change was led.

A. Everyone understands why and how the change will occur

First, the Senior Leadership Team (SLT) asked people in their teams to generate questions that the SLT member should feel confident in addressing. For each question, an FAQ short-form response was prepared by the executive. Questions were similar to these.

• Why are we doing this??
• Does this mean more work??
• How will we carry out the change??
• Structural implications?

B. Team level leaders can articulate how it will affect their teams’ daily work

The most useful shorthand I’ve found to help leaders explore this is the Cartesian logic of the 4 Doors, by fellow Melbourne consultant Jason Clarke:

Each group’s manager should articulate four things:

1) Things we used to be able to do and still can (This change won’t affect this)

2) Thing we couldn’t do and still can’t (This change won’t fix this)

3) Things we couldn’t do before but can now (This change will enable this)

4) Things we used to be able to but now can’t (This change will prevent this - both positive and negative)

I asked each manager to compile a Top 3 list for the two Open Doors (1) and (3), and engage their teams in a discussion about these. Managers then came together to discuss their experience of discussing the FAQs and the Open Doors. .

C. How to strategise using a Matrix approach

Just a few weeks ago I wrote about how a matrix structure is far superior to the conventional hierarchical organisational chart.

And, guess what? A matrix structure earns its keep in times of change too. All you need to do is cross-reference each team with every other team, and ask, “With which other teams do you see potential to do a LOT MORE, or a BIT MORE?”

In this project, I insisted that managers are responsible for the intersect, but that executive remain vigilant to:

a) Identify the nature of the benefit, and link it to broader organisational objectives;

b) Encourage the respective managers to hold open, productive conversations;

c) Intervene where boundary skirmishes (or inertia) occur.

D. How to assess your own Change Leadership capability

Finally, the last ingredient, which I think of as “bringing your best change leadership self” to work. This is a self-reflection using a diagnostic tool. I honestly don’t think it matters WHICH tool you use, as long as it stimulates self-reflection and conversation amongst your leaders.

In this case, we did a rapid build of our own tool, by asking managers, “What are the essential skills you think good change requires?”. Here are the seven they came up with:

I then constructed a 21-item self-assessment by creating three questions for each of these. Each manager then rated their past capability on a five point scale:

1. I never do this
2. I rarely do this
3. I sometimes do this
4. I often do this
5. I always do this

The score range on each of the dimensions was between 9 - 15 and it allowed the managers within each group to have a conversation discussing: “My top 2 capabilities, and my lowest capabilities”. After they’d revealed these to one another, they asked, “What can I do with my Top 2 skills to support my colleagues?”

The conversations were open, supportive and gracious. Those who over-stated their capabilities were gently brought back a notch; those who under-stated were encouraged to up-rate themselves slightly.

The Results Speak Volumes

That’s it. The entire process started with co-design between me, executives and the People & Culture team, led to two half-day workshops and a survey by managers, and some time each manager spent with their team (which they’d do anyway). The outcomes were remarkable. What we got, immediately was:

a) Virtually zero resistance to the change proposals

b) High confidence in leading the change from middle-management

c) Stated willingness to seek help and support if things get tricky

Drop me a click of the "Like" if you liked this week’s format —— I’ll do it again in future, on strategic leadership topics if you and others tell me it’s helpful.

I’ll look forward to being with you again next week,

Andrew