What does love got to do with it?

Really, is there enough anger, hatred, vitriol out there yet?

Examining the social landscape, it’s easy to see the outrageous amounts of information on people and their personal lives that sometimes destroy reputations. Is there not a new fascination that needs to grow, one where the energy of the collective is spent on caring for, loving, one another as the true path peace and harmony?

What’s love got to do with it?

Honestly, aren’t you ready for more stories about people taking care of another? What if heroism is not only attributed to the sports world or the war world, but in every day people going above and beyond to help another in need? How about a little less anger and criticism, excessive focus on issues that don’t matter and only cause distraction from the critical problems that threaten our economy and stability.

I remember hearing stories of barn raising, of people coming together to collectively solve problems and  collaborate to reach shared goals, and long for being part of those kinds of stories. I challenge myself to create these kinds of relationships in my work world, and find it all too difficult to accomplish. I wonder, “are humans, in this culture, capable of building a life that’s focused more on the common good than on one’s own best interests”?

Really, folks, can’t we make an effort to bring more love and peace into our lives? And can I?

I write this in hopes of inspiring myself to always get better at being part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I can and do make positive contributions to the functioning of the systems I partake in, and model behavior that motivates others as well. But I want to improve upon my ability to bring harmony in the face of stress, and struggle to do so.

In part, that’s why I’m writing this, and encourage at least one reader to take responsibility for changing themselves and their attitude along with me.

It’s much more productive when at least two of us do this, don’t you think?

Is it too much to ask??

I don’t remember a time in my life when the state of our union has felt more fractured. The opportunity for change feels like a fantasy, as the clear identity of those whose goal is to defeat is seen for its amazingly ugly self.

How do we really allow such hatred and lies to be a vital part of the debate? Why are we so unwilling to take care of us as a people, demanding health care reform that makes life better for all.

I often find myself wondering about patriotism. What does it mean? If I am a patriot then I’m a lover of my country. My country is those who inhabit the land that I do, as well as the land itself. So then what does love mean? Does it mean we take care of each other, live in peace, and form a bond as a people? If so, why aren’t we seeing this regularly reflected in our country?

No doubt love exists in corners, but if patriotism means love of country and love of land, then neither of these are being fulfilled in any way. The land is destroyed regularly through a variety of human activities, and way too many remind us that violence is the only way to get ahead or end pain.

You want love? Look for two people, of any sex, enjoying each other’s company, feeling happy, free, and eminently hopeful. Look for people coming together to build a barn, feed a family, or help an injured person. There are plenty of examples of this happening in our country.

But we also see outrageous amounts of exploitation of humans in a variety of settings, from slavery to sweatshops to parts of the corporate world, each a variety of exploitation in its own way.

Do I experience peace in my community and acts of love: definitely. I am grateful for living in a relatively peaceful community that is largely about being creative, taking care of family, and trying to give back. But with so many elements of society sabotaging the opportunity to build a more perfect union, and profiting from these activities, I find it hard to say I love all aspects of this country.

I don’t feel patriotic. I don’t see much evidence  of  healthy and respectful debate toward solution of our shared problems. I don’t see enough people willingly coming together to demand change; rather, I listen to the meaningless chatter of those addicted to entertainment and sports to push away the pain of living in a culture that almost forces us to compete against each other. And expects us to love the country at the same time.

I want to be patriotic. I want healthy debate, and I want people to invite politics into our conversations and not be afraid.

I want people to care about our future enough to debate issues and join together to make our communities better.

Is that too much to ask?!!!

Mixing metaphors: How change principles apply to public policy work

What is up in our culture? To me it seems that in the US we are continually inundated with change, and yet somehow still manage to resist change and maintain rigidity.

Is this you?

In many of my conversations the theme of “reeling from all the change” shows up.  The depth and breadth of change in our workplaces, communities, families, towns, and ways of relating to each other grows at such a pace that adapting has become a survival tool. The speed with which one needs to adapt likely has never come close to what many of us now are forced to manage.

What is particularly amazing to me is the resistance to significant change in the health care industry. What I don’t understand is why people get out on the streets in support of the status quo when overwhelming evidence tells us of the critical need to reform. Is fear simply the only answer, or is basic resistance to change that plays such a significant role?

And if resistance to the unknown is more powerful than the overwhelming need for improvement in the way health care is delivered and to whom,  what does that say about our culture?

My perspective on this goes beyond what might be reduced to fear,  whipped up by those opposing the change (the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, primarily). I see the situation lacking in any change management strategy that can then manifest in a successful  change effort.

How might this work?

If one accepts the premise that government entities are more like a corporation than different, moving policy ideas to implementation can benefit from following proven corporate change principles.  Why wouldn’t government leaders  look to best practices from the corporate world to influence the process in such a way as to achieve its goal?

One could certainly argue the point that government is significantly different from a corporation so as to render the change methodology useless. Government can’t fire the people and certainly our quasi-democratic form won’t tolerate a(nother) dictator (especially in the post George W. Bush era).

But if we review principles and concepts of the change methodology used in corporate change efforts, might there be nuggets of wisdom that can transfer to the government arena?

Let’s look at the hypothetical methodology that might be employed if a state wanted to adopt a new methodology to provide child care services  for all of its needy citizens.

This is  an exploration of the question of whether or not there is transferability of corporate change management techniques when attempting to improve the community we share.

Imagine state government leaders convening to put forward a radical proposal to guarantee that all children will receive high quality care when parents are working. Through years of study and data collection, comparison with other similarly sized regions of the world and their means of providing such vital care,  the leaders are prepared to present a new approach that they believe will solve this social problem.

A corporation has the luxury of a smaller group of leaders who wrestle with policy decisions to arrive at change that comes in the form of new services or products. The government, in contrast, must wrestle with elected officials seeking the limelight and openly debating potential policy changes that could impact millions of people.

In this hypothetical example,  state leaders have an agreed upon a solution to a public problem and now must “sell” the idea to various levels of leadership throughout the state. Taking this approach would be mimicking the corporate technique of developing leadership “champions” to drive the change through lower level management with the goal of preparing those most impacted by the approaching change.

Here’s how the leaders in the child care initiative might approach attaining their goal:

1. Start with clearly articulating a vision for the change. Paint a picture of what will be the result of this improvement in child care services for the citizens of the state. What will society look like as a result of this investment of time and effort to make the change happen? What will be the result for people, business, communities? What specific direction are the leaders bringing the state and, most importantly, what’s in it for me?

2. Pull in leaders from communities throughout the state to introduce the vision and the specific changes that, when implemented, would achieve the vision. Set the expectation with them for becoming citizen champions of the change.

3. Frame the message as one of economic equality.  In the truest sense, the proposal for change must have significant benefits for the majority, and the case for change must be strongly and regularly articulated.

4. Debate the solution through the legislative process, continually taking the high ground of demonstrating how the proposed change will benefit the majority and strengthen the resilience, health, and well-being of the community and its citizens. This is the key piece of the work because leaders need to inspire champions at all levels of society to push the same vision within their communities.

5. Use the opportunity of legislative debate to continue to influence the thinking of those who will ultimately need to do something different  to implement the new legislative mandates. Building support for legislation and its passage needs to come from the grassroots as the effort only begins with the passage of the new policy.

Comparison with software implementation at the corporate level

In software implementation we talk of the difference between installation of the system and implementation. Certainly designing and building the software, and the preparation for installation, is much less challenging than the process of getting new users to learn and master the intended benefits of the system. Implementation is getting new users to readily adopt the system, learn its nuances, and begin to draw out the return on investment.

So, too, must legislators and other leaders not only pass legislation to improve the community, they must prepare those impacted by the new law for implementation.  Involving interested parties who have championed the change activity in any plans for implementation will be the key to move from installation to implementation.

Now it’s your turn. From your perspective, how might change management principles be incorporated into public policy development and implementation?

The Antidote

All readers beware! This is the antidote and NOT the answer.

I want to explore efforts I’ve participated in to turn poor implementation results into a highly successful change effort.

When confronted with the continued reality of not having dedicated change management resources (read: zero) for a large implementation effort, the team I led decided to learn from the mistakes of prior efforts and take on the work that ordinarily would be orchestrated by someone focusing on the change component. Fortunately, I understand enough about how to build change into a project and was able to steer the training plan into one that included enough components of change methodology to improve upon what was learned in prior efforts.

This manifested through a project  to bring clinicians and nursing staff from the ambulatory surgery center onto the system-wide electronic medical record. The implementation took on the highly challenging task of moving  staff from never using computers and documenting all their work in a paper chart to fully utilizing a the electronic medical record.

The team I led was primarily a training team, but one that understood the dangers of going into training without prepared students.

Key changes were made in the approach to implementation. Some of the most important changes were:

1. Preparing end users for the change

A series of three “in-services” were organized in the months leading up to the implementation. During these scheduled in-services, trainers prepared end users (primarily nursing staff) for using the computer during their patient time. The hour long preparatory meetings helped nurses feel more comfortable with the planned changes, and gave them hands on exposure to the system and how it was being configured. This strategy went a long way toward reducing resistance and fears, and nurses were told after each in-service that they had to begin using the computers to look up patient chart information. 

2. Training the end users

Through negotiations with key business leaders within the organization, a training plan was developed that mixed didactic knowledge sharing strategies with hands-on practice time. In all, nurses attended two 8 hour classes spread a week apart, and were able to learn the system through exposure and practice.

3. The Sandbox

Critical to the success of the project was the development of a “sandbox environment” that matched the production environment nurses and doctors would eventually use to document patient care. With the support of management and project leadership, the training team set up a series of opportunities for users to practice real-life scenarios in the sandbox environment. With the help of trained facilitators who were their colleagues, nurses flowed through the sandbox training room and began their process of mastering the skills needed to be effective on day one of go-live.

3. Assessment and support:

The skills of clinicians and nursing staff were assessed after the training and sandbox practice time to determine what they had retained and to prepare for the next level of intervention: end user support.

Clinicians assessed their own confidence in using the new system at the end of class. When the system was turned on and a clinician was scheduled to perform a surgery, a support person used that assessment to quickly connect with the clinician and help bridge the learning gaps that s/he still had. Targeting offered support based on what those areas not  fully understood was an effective strategy in moving clinicians to proficiency.

Nurses, who have significantly more documentation in the electronic record than do doctors, received a hands on assessment by a nurse educator or a skilled colleague. The results of that assessment were given to designated support staff who at implementation connected individually with nurses to review areas that presented as skill gaps. With this focus, nurses quickly brought their documentation skills up to a level of proficiency.

Within three days of implementation, these change strategies resulted in productivity levels rising to normal (i.e. prior to implementation of the new system) and in some areas productivity showed increases. Within two weeks, the surgery center was surpassing prior productivity standards, and patients were getting better quality care.

What did we learn?

Using assessments to gauge staff preparedness set forth a new dynamic. End users knowing that their understanding and budding skills were going to be assessed contributed to their increased ability to learn the new system.

This contrasted with past efforts when messaging about the change implicitly was interpreted by users as more a choice to learn, as there were no built-in accountabilities. The classroom time, then, acted more as an “exposure” to the system as there were no clear expectations to learn it.

In the case of the surgery center, effectively preparing new users for the movement to the electronic medical record paid significant dividends. As management set clear expectations, change efforts introduced the new world with enough time for end users to get beyond the denial and anger stages. Combined with effective post-training support, the effort culminated with the most successful implementation the team had ever experienced.

So what were the lessons learned?

1. Prepare end users by early engagement in learning opportunities.

2. Set clear expectations about learning, backed by means to assess progress

3. Provide ample opportunity to practice skills with real life scenarios in a structured, facilitated environment.

4. Utilize assessment to target areas where users did not get fully prepared through training and pro-actively reach out to them to provide “on the job” training.

The implementation of an electronic medical record can be daunting from a number of perspectives, but with proven methodology, the challenge of moving medical staff from traditional documentation methods to electronic formats can be highly successful.

Making this happen in such an environment is possible. But can such experience by transferred into the larger social context to bring about social change? That’s the question this site is dedicated to explore. What do you think?

Success vs. failure: case study in software implementation

Now, for a bit of change in focus.

I think it’s important to understand how change methodologies work in the context of software implementation, while still keeping one eye pointed on how these methodologies might work in social change efforts.

To repeat my hypothesis, some change methodologies and experience in corporate sectors can be transferred to efforts to make social change, and that these methodologies, well implemented, could be measured and shown to be much more effective than traditional organizing efforts. Again, this is simply a concept I’m playing with and welcome feedback from readers.

I realize that just because change methodologies utilized in a corporate environment often work to help individuals accept and embrace change doesn’t necessarily mean they can be successfully applied in the framework of social change in the larger community.

From my experience, in some cases the methods and tools work well and other times the result is not so clear.

This article is to explore a case study of when and how change methodology worked and did not work. My hope is to level set with how change methodology can be effectively utilized in a corporate setting and to challenge myself and readers to transfer these learnings into a new model for social change applications.

Here are a few accountings of experience to demonstrate.

The Nightmare

When a software implementation goes sour in a healthcare environment, the consequences can ripple throughout the organization and into the patient community. Such an experience happened last year with an integrated software tool that was designed  to help Radiologists with documenting their consults, viewing their patients x-rays, and managing their schedule.

The project resulted in a less than optimal implementation and for purposes of learning I want to explore what went wrong.

Poor planning: the first fatal flaw

imagine waiting for a dozen years to finally get the funding for improving a legacy system that didn’t meet the needs of clinicians, techs or patients. The anticipation and expectations for this system were sky high.

Now, imagine that anticipated project being sandwiched between the implementation of the organization’s largest software implementation and the end of a fiscal year. Four weeks after the implementation of three sophisticated software applications throughout a 260+ bed hospital, the new Radiology system took its turn at the plate, hoping to survive the go-live experience.

The story’s details are less important that the outcome, which featured unhappy end users, broken functionality in the system, and unclear work flows. This interruption in patient care took on the form of internal protests, poor treatment of administrators and helpers, and demands for changes.

The poor results can be traced back to poor planning, and playing a starring role in this production was poor leadership, and poor decision-making.

Poor leadership

This is the most critical factor and examining what went wrong it’s clear that the lack of senior leadership attention (which was largely diverted to the inpatient implementation) allowed for poor project leadership to fumble its way to implementation.

Project leadership had no sense of change management, effective communication, team building, end user readiness, and effective decision-making. With no mentorship, and little accountability, the project allowed for the configuration, design, and testing to be closely monitored, but the preparation of end users for the change suffered from lack of skills on the project team.

To examine more closely, leadership failed to engage Imaging management with the expectation that the managers lead the change effort at the local level. Instead, managers who were only slightly resistant to the change didn’t understand their role and how to prepare their staff and the physicians for the change. Not having experienced a software implementation, they didn’t know quite what to do and the project leadership didn’t have a plan to help them.

Poor decision-making

Before going much further, I want the reader to understand that implementing electronic medical record systems is extremely complex, and being still in its infancy the methodology is still evolving.

Still, decision-making as a basis for any kind of effort should be more refined and not be part of the reason a project fails. In this case, my supposition is that poor methods of decision-making, including the project leadership’s inability to call the question and force decision-making, sabotaged the potential success.

The lessons here can be as simple as proper meeting process, facilitating of discussions that should lead to decisions, and improving the ability of decision-makers to understand their shared destiny.

Ignoring these fundamentals doomed the effort

In short, nothing went well.

In Sum

So in examining how to avoid such a debacle in the future, a few key things were called out:

1. Leadership of the Imaging department had to make faster, more complete decisions about how the work was going to flow in an electronic system, and how to get users of that system to adjust to the new workflow. The lack of investment in change management resources and tools made a difficult effort all the more challenging.

2. The system build had to be completed with firm, non-changing decisions with plenty of time to build training curriculum and conduct effective training.

In fact, changes to the system happened just weeks and in some cases days before the implementation, and during the time end users were being trained. That resulted in the system looking significantly different from the training environment from which the end users were being trained. Big mistake.

3. No change management. Somehow, the organization I work in sees change management as a valuable tool to help move end users to acceptance of change, yet doesn’t allocate resources. There are areas where change management is in place–for example, training and supporting new users to work in the system is an undisputed need that receives funding without a challenge. But getting users ready to participate in the training, to be pyschologically ready for change and have their concerns/questions addressed, is just not built in. Therefore, it’s largely not done.

Recounting the nightmare is not helpful (though possibly entertaining). What’s important to know is that the Radiologists involved revolted, and as a result got part of their legacy system back. Any of them who had crossed over that psychological hurdle to embrace the changes have now been empowered to resist.

The Antidote

Telling the failure story is difficult, and incomplete as well. Changes continue to happen over the year since the implementation failure occured, and many improvements were built into the system to better work for the Radiologists and Techs who use it. But the damage was done.

In my next article I’ll explore how these lessons learned were translated into new approaches that led to very successful implementations.

 

Collaboration: Key to implementing change

Change absolutely requires a partnership between the one making or proposoing the change and those impacted by that change.  Whatever the the change (new systems, new products, new processes), the most effective way of getting people to own the new process or product is to work collaboratively with them to execute the change effort.

Collaborative Styles

A variety of styles of collaboration I would recommend considering are as follows:

• Involve those impacted by change  in the decision- making process for designing the change
• Provide opportunities for  feedback on the change design
• Offer opportunities to see/hear/feel the change and allow resistance to surface. Ask, ” What are we not seeing that needs to be seen?”

Which strategy to choose partly depends upon your organization’s culture. Visit the IMA website to read more about measurement of historical perceptions of change within your organization, and how using tools to measure those perceptions allow for narrowing the scope of the intervention.

If you decide to involve those impacted by the change in some level of decision-making, be very clear what their involvement really means. I’ve been involved in situations where people perceived a level of decision-making that wasn’t clearly articulated and communicated, and in the absence of  tight boundaries, imagined “co-management” as the goal. The failure to define collaboration and its boundaries is why the powerful technique fails.

When you are clear about the rules of engagement in collaborative efforts, you set effective boundaries that guide people’s abilities to participate.

Involving those impacted by change

As an example, consider these ways of setting up a group of front line employees for reviewing a proposed or planned change:

1. Present the change and empower those impacted by the change to respond with questions, suggestions, concerns, and “show stoppers”. This will provide information as to how much preparation you will need for front line workers to adjust to and adopt the new system/process/product
2. Present a clear vision of the change and enlist help in designing the new system or components of the system where their expertise and experience can be harnessed to enhance the end product.

Additional ways for building collaboration in a change effort is to empower others to participate as change leaders. Some of those opportunities you’ll want and need to design into any change process are:

• “Champions” whose role is to socialize the coming change with peers and others
• Local level sponsorship, a strategy to  involve management and leaders with “skin in the game”  who communicate the vision and the change
• Change agents who orchestrate the preparation and education of those impacted by the change. This involves developing strategies to gather feedback and input into the change, and prepare for the day to day impact of the change (training, support)

Involving the “end users”

Impacted parties (or end users) must play a significant role  in the change process for successful implementation. That role is played through participation in viewing and reacting to the change, and getting appropriate education/training to be effective in the new environment.

End users also need to know:

• what’s changing
• why it’s changing
• what’s expected of them in the change
• “what’s in it for me”

This isn’t just a “nice to have”. Rather, involving end users represents potentially the difference between a successful implementation and failure.

Resistance

Without time to understand and process how a change will impact their lives, those impacted by the change are likely to go into resistance.  Managing resistance must be equal parts of reality checks (“this is going to happen”) and expectations to prepare themselves (“This is happening and your best strategy for surviving is to get ahead of the curve” messages are my favorites.). The goal should be to make the transition smooth and for the impacted parties to demonstrate flexibility and resilience with change.

Do we need to remind you that change is inevitable and those with flexibility and resilience are the ones who survive?

Making a commitment to a collaborative process and setting tight boundaries provide the structure for involvement that will enhance your change effort.

 

You’ll want to read here first

Imagine yourself starting over and getting to design change in your organization or community and not having to follow the old, tried and untrue ways of bringing about that change.

What if, for example, you used proven business strategies, adapted of course, but based on the principles that help some businesses effectively implement new systems, processes, work flow, products, etc. successful?

My experience has been as a leader of implementing new electronic medical records systems and applications, where the need for end user readiness requires effective change management strategies to implement documentation systems used by doctors and nurses every day. Our challenge is now enhancing the efficient use of these systems,  but was initially getting new, non-computer using staff to move from paper to electronic systems.

This is where the connections that I will outline in these writings began to be made in my head. This writing is a natural consequences of what I am seeing.

My desire to make these connections explicit were further strengthened in the spring of 2009 while helping a grassroots lobbying effort influencing debate on a piece of environmental legislation.

What I saw in that effort was that government, the entity influencing much of our lives through the collective decision-making process given to us by our forefathers, is more likely to adopt change in line with powerful special interests.

Now this isn’t news to you or me, but proved to be a failed strategy of  approaching a group of smart men and women in regard to legislation with a proven business model in several other countries.

My point, which I will reiterate over and over to keep myself on track and to make this work of value to you the reader, is that given rational heads prevailing, “best practices” or “winning formulas” have transferability and should be looked at by government leaders bringing in change.

There’s no doubt that the emergence of Barack Obama in our society and the message of change he carried for millions of Americans screams loudly for understanding change methodologies.

Too often in our companies and our communities, good ideas are raised, considered, debated, and eventually deemed worthy of implementation. A decision to implement new systems might be accomplished on the back of fear. Effective implementation of new systems, workflows, work habits or products is something many of us have brought to business and the corporate world. It’s now time for government to look at change methodology for serving the whole of our communities.

So why this blog?

In essence, this blog is a call to action, but not to the traditional advocacy groups. Rather it is a call to business leadership to both improve their decision-making and change rollout processes to become more effective, and to call on government to study the transferability of change methodologies in proposing and implementing new strategies to accomplish common goals of peace and prosperity.

Why I want you to keep reading?

This work is a manifestation of my railing about the failed change efforts both in and outside of the corporate world. It has driven me to wonder why change is so difficult, especially at a time when the body politic of the US has resonated with the idea of change.

Looking at the methodical way that some corporate entities bring change within their walls, whether the implementation of new systems or new products, can teach all who seek greater change in our collective communities.

I can’t think of a reason not to look at best practice in a change effort, and certainly the history of bringing about community change is rife with common patterns of mistake that produce expected results.

Comparing and contrasting methodologies, then, can lead to potential strategies borrowed from one world to another. Successful change is the bottom line and can be achieved by those focused on using methods that have been proven to be effective.

So what are these magical methodologies? I’ll explore that theme in my next article.

Can change management and project management exist in the same universe?

Is there an intersection of change and project management that can propel projects to completion more efficiently, less costly, and with adoption outcomes that less the hit on productivity?

I’ve given a good deal of thought to the cross-over of these two change tools and have noticed that the lack of connection between these two disciplines detracts from completing projects on time, on budget, and with those impacted buying into the change.

I see and define change management to mean the implementation of a set of strategies to prepare those impacted by a change effort to quickly and effectively incorporate the change into their work/life/world.

Project management, with a focus on laying out the necessary steps to accomplish a task and managing those steps to completion, needs change management tools to bring projects to full implementation (In the healthcare IT world we call this implementation vs. installation). And yet the two fields often act like neighbors living close geographically but with separate, unconnected lives.

Imagine the power of working change management techniques into project plans, defining success in terms of those impacted by the change able to continue working at productivity levels equal or greater than prior to the change.

My perspective is from participating in leading implementation of software systems to replace paper processes. Change management techniques utilized in a project management environment is a superb match, focusing on both system configuration and implementation, as well as getting quick adoption and learning of new systems by the end users.

But frequently in my organization, change management is a “nice to have” rather than a “need to have”. Project managers strive to get change related strategies built into their project plans, with no coordinating resource to fully do the job (for what to do about this familiar scenario, see my next article “How to do change management without really trying”).

To more fully understand what change management can do to make a project manager’s world more successful, consider the need for the following:

• Clear leadership messaging from a variety of corners of an organization preparing those impacted by the change. This typically involves leadership showing “skin in the game” as well as outlining a vision for the future as a result of the change.
• Developing rewards and consequences for early adopters of the change.
• Strategies for change consider the organization’s culture and its history with change.

So in my mind change management strategies embedded into project management plans can bring a level of success that is more likely to deliver a project’s completion on time, on budget, and with those impacted by the change able to quickly exceed prior productivity levels.

This discussion is to share thoughts and ideas about how to bring these often disparate tools together to meet the goals of change implementation.

How do we get leadership to see the benefits of a change/project management marriage and create this new model of implementation? How do we get leaders to see it’s a “both/and” scenario rather than “either/or”?

What is your experience in bringing these two fields together?

Promoting change from the bully pulpit

Change is a hot topic these days largely due to last year’s presidential election, and the promise of bringing change to several of the nation’s problems.

We continue to see our president pushing a change agenda. Today,  Barack Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to set forth his plan for reforming health care. I’d like to encourage readers to look at this through the filter of change management and how his strategy may play out.

First, Obama is an organizer at heart, and uses the power of his speech, thoughts, and method of delivery to inspire and convince. That is clearly his strength and he uses that skill in what is becoming a classic style. We expect him, almost want him, to hit a home run every time he’s up to bat in front of the American people, and then we become fans again.

Is this his strategy and if so what are his calculations about overplaying his strength?

How long can he ride this wave of awe?

Fortunately,  speaking clearly and in an inspiring way is not his only skill or tactic. An organizer knows s/he has to reach people in multiple ways in order to mobilize support and reach change goals, whether they are the president of the country or a local sponsor of a change initiative.

Mobilizing people is what Obama the candidate did so well, and now we are witnessing what the power of organization can or cannot do in the political arena which decisions of huge impact are made.

Remembering the principles of change management strategy, Obama is playing the role of the sponsor, setting the boundaries for the change and seeking his reinforcing sponsors at all levels. Looking at this change effort through the corporate model of implementing change, one can see transferability of techniques.  By mobilizing tens of thousands of champions, some of whom have communities of influence they lead and can be seen as “reinforcing sponsors”, while clearly laying out the end goal of the change effort (health care for all, paid for by savings and other sources), one could argue that Obama is using the change model that has caught on in the corporate world.

While I believe that this effort is being orchestrated effectively, the political world is much more powerful than the politics present in the culture of corporate America.

When we look at some of the drivers of change, clearly having an articulate and popular spokesperson is critical. Look at the success that corporate America has had with using celebrities to pitch their products as an example. Selling is a key component of change, and although not the only one, clearly a highly important part of any effort.

What’s the applicable piece here for all change agents, both in corporate offices and on the streets?

Your message has to be compelling. It has to be clear. It has to tell readers what the future will look like, and it has to calm fears through that description. It needs to be said forcefully, and the emotions have to be balanced with reason.

In my next post I’ll explore more about how change effectively begins with clear direction for the impact of the activity leading to change.

Lessons learned vs. lessons “heard”

Although there are those of us thrilled by change, the majority of people respond to change with resistance and fear.

Yet, change is clearly a necessary part of our lives, as we collectively tumble into the future with new challenges faced regularly as individuals and as a society. The opportunity to make change, to learn from our past and apply those learnings to the future,  is largely what keeps our way of life moving. Resistance to change reduces the possibility of progress in new technological, social, and economic areas.

So this site is dedicated to learning from the past, pushing forward to a future state that offers benefits to others, and managing change so that potential can be realized.

Techniques used under the rubric of “change management”, the methodology by which resistance is alleviated and projects are brought to completion on time and on budget, are essential to successful implementation in the corporate world. Why wouldn’t these “best practices” that bring change to the ways employees do their jobs not be transferable to social change efforts?

While good ideas regularly are discarded,  managing the consequent change for those that advance to implementation is the challenge that readers of this blog share.

Learning from the past

A key ingredient to the goal of managing change is reviewing what did not work in the latest attempt. So many times I have come to see the mistakes from the last system or application implementation show up over and over, even though smart people attempted to avoid such pitfalls.  The patterns of not changing, and failing to acknowledge the pain points of the past in order to invent a better way, are the stumbling blocks that becomes the breeding ground of a failed change effort.

There is a joke that slyly is repeated in stops in the office kitchen, a joke told much of the story of failure to learn from the past. “Lessons learned” conversation that arose during a formal post-mortem after a project had completed really were “lessons heard” instead. What we failed to exploit in these debriefing sessions was the luxury of history that produce valuable lessons, and therefore the opportunity to incorporate learning into project plans.

Pushing forward to a state that improves and benefits others

The refrain you hear from these writings is that change tools are available to all and need to be adopted if an individual or group wants to successfully lead a change effort. You’ll also hear me say that change efforts are interrupted and often derailed by an unwillingness to think and behave differently.

The familiar is most likely the preferred. You want a group of people to change their patterns and their routines for an alternative that is unknown and promises only the pain of change, and you’re likely to see failure.

So learning from the past is part of the prescription, and by learning I mean adopting new ways and not allowing the pain of change impact your efforts to move others. Isn’t ironic that there is often unwillingness to look back and change practices and policies that failed? If as leaders of change efforts we’re not willing to learn and grow, and then put into practice that learning, our efforts are likely to fail.

Using change technology for public good

Finally, the intent to benefit and improve a process, one’s  work life,  or the community has to be the focus.  If, in fact, unwillingness to change comes from the safety felt by the familiar and the uncertainty that comes with the unknown, it is absolutely vital that a compelling case be made.

If the motive is increased profit, be clear and upfront and share the wealth.

If we use health care reform as the intended change goal, paint the picture for the target audience of how their lives and communities will benefit by the sacrifice it will take to get there. Health care is an emotional issue, and the case for change needs to be framed by the emotions as well as the rational argument that presents best practices as a model.

Managing change to reach potential

Understanding that resistance to change is normal and natural, strategies are developed that anticipate the resistance  and meet it prior to momentum gains that typically happen quickly. Being in the “frame of reference” of those targeted for change allows for a different perspective that can bring forward questions and challenges.

Once it is known what the targets of change need to move forward in support and/or behavior change, strategies that capture their awareness have to be developed.

Look to your closest leaders to be sponsors and willing/able to articulate the case for change in an impassioned manner. Build that network first so that you have wider investment in carrying the message.

Viola: change?

Is it possible that things stay the same because of the inertia around doing something different? I firmly believe that the main challenge in change efforts is overcoming the fear of the unknown and the unwillingness of individuals to do something different. That unwillingness certainly relates to the fear associated with the unknown, but largely lives in the resistance to having to think. After all, most of us go through much of our life without having to think all that much. We’re literally on “automatic pilot” when we drive, and mostly on that same mode as we go through much of our lives.

Teach others to be flexible

In my years of doing yoga and stretching my body I noticed how much more flexible my psyche became, and the openness I felt in my body translated openness to change and growth.

Knowing about resistance to change, and the closing down one does while resisting, demands that we teach others to accept change as inevitable and resistance not always being the appropriate response.

Change is inevitable, and each of us can benefit from increasing our adaptability. Yes, easy to say and difficult to do. Here are a few techniques that one might try:

• Seek first to understand the change in a greater context. Just as leaders have a responsibility to effectively communicate, good followers must also be willing to consider the possibilities. Resistance usually results from a lack of understanding of why something is changing,  so redirect energy away from anger and resistance to deeper understanding the thinking behind what’s coming.
• See the advantages of early adoption. Given that the majority around you will, without consciousness,  resist change gives you the opportunity to be a leader. Not all change is for the best, but resistance switches the focus from problem solving to confusion and struggle. Ask yourself, “is this behavior improving the situation?”
• Seeing life as a series of changes that come with experience and age allows for the realization that one survives because of adaptability. If our immune system was not working 24/7 to fight off germs and bacteria that enter our body, we would not survive. The body’s ability to self-regulate and adopt to cell changes, bacteria, viruses, cuts, verbal pain etc. tells us that we, too, are able to adopt to change successfully from a mental perspective.