There are many books written about how successful organizational change takes place. Some say that it begins with mutual trust, collective pride, and self-discipline. Others focus on transparent performance measures and the clear tracking of results. Whether it is based on mission vision and core values or process improvement and metrics, I have come to the conclusion that there are many pathways to the same destination, namely successful implementation of organizational change.
After working side by side with leaders in large and small, for-profit and non-profit companies for over 30 years, I want to share three observations about how these leaders have achieved success. These insights are not bold, new or cutting edge. They are instead simple without being simplistic. They reflect the real and in-depth work that senior leaders do to create effective, long term change.
First, these leader make time for reflection. They know that every day is going to be busy and every day will be filled with many meetings. They know their desk will be covered with reports that require a lot of time and attention. They also know that their e-mail in-box will always be full. And yet, they routinely make time to step away from the busy work to think deeply and holistically about the themselves, their team and the company.
From my vantage point, these leaders seek out and protect these times of stillness because they understand two powerful concepts. First, as John Paul Lederach writes in in his book, The Moral Imagination, these leaders understand that “stillness is not inactivity. It is the presence of disciplined activity without movement…. It is the platform that generates authenticity of engagement, for it is the stage that makes true listening and seeing possible.” As Lederach continues, “Stillness requires a commitment of patience and watchfulness. Its guideposts are these: Slow down. Stop. Watch what moves around you. Feel what moves in you.”
The best leaders I have met and the ones who have successfully implemented multiple change cycles over many years understand that by creating regular time for reflection, and the subsequent stillness that comes with this action, they are able to tap into their inner wisdom and inner dialogue. And from this place of quiet clarity, they can ask themselves three powerful and challenging questions: What am I observing externally? What am I feeling internally? And, - what is the story I am telling myself about what is happening externally and internally? By giving themselves permission to do this level of work and by recognizing the value of this inner process, they are able to discover new insights about themselves and others, see emerging patterns and trends, and to discover new and better questions that need to be explored and answered by themselves, their team and the company as a whole.
The second concept that comes with valuing time for reflection and stillness is based on an understanding of the difference between reward-centered leadership and responsibility-centered leadership. Some individuals who become a leader see it up as a reward for all their years of hard work and service to the company. As Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Motive, writes, “they see leadership as the prize of years of hard work and are drawn by its trappings: attention, status, power, money.” As he continues, “When leaders are motivated by personal reward. they will avoid the unpleasant situations and activities that leadership requires.”
Responsibility-centered leaders, on the other hand notes Lencioni, “want to serve others, to do whatever is necessary to bring about something good for the people they serve.” Rather than being self-centered, these leaders lean into the challenges before them and are willing to hold difficult and uncomfortable conversations. They do not shy away from the hard work of creating clarity and focus, plus the difficult work of holding people and themselves accountable for outcomes.
And for them, the first step to doing this important work is to create personal clarity before creating team and organizational clarity. They understand that being over scheduled is not a pathway to clarity. So, on a regular basis, they step away from the world of constant inputs and instead seek stillness in the midst of action, recognizing that it is the foundation for authenticity, humility and empathy, all of which are vital to being a good leader.
Second, these same leaders create a work environment that supports healthy change. Over the course of many decades, I have observed multiple forms of organizational change. Some have been driven by fear and others have been driven by purpose. Some have involved teamwork and others have resulted in bitter rivalries within the company. And finally some have resulted in deep distrust and cynicism while others have resulted in commitment, passion and unity. Each in their own way created organizational change. But in the end, healthy organizational change and the resulting impact on organizational culture is the critical difference between the winners and losers over multiple change cycles.
Healthy change is not a common term used within the context of organizational change. Many leaders use the words “strategic change” or “organizational transformation” but “healthy” is not part of their normal lexicon when talking about organizational change. Yet, when I observe change that works and lasts over time, the word healthy is the best word to described what happened and what continues to take place. Patrick Lencioni in his book, The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business, writes that a healthy organization is one that has “minimal politics and confusion, high degree of morale and productivity, and very low turnover among good employees.” For all involved clarity of purpose, mutual trust and unconditional respect are foundational to their on-going efforts to continually improve and innovate in order to meet the ever changing needs of their customers.
In the midst of creating this healthy work environment, there is one small but significant thing that I have observed that for me differentiates the great organizations from the good ones, namely the ratio of advocacy to inquiry communication within meetings. As a consultant involved in strategic planning since the mid 1980’s, I have facilitated countless large and small meetings. What I have observed is that the best leaders regularly sit back and listen very carefully to what is being said and how it is being said. To them, the depth of strategic dialogue within a team meeting is critical to short and long-term success.
And within these important meetings, these leaders focus on how many members of the team are making a point or stating their case for change, i.e. advocacy based communication, and how many are willing to ask questions to understand another person’s point of view or perspective, i.e. inquiry based communication. This ratio of healthy advocacy and inquiry is critical because a team who is successful is one that is collectively committed and responsible for the success of the whole team and the whole company.
Finally, these leaders understand the differences between clock time, operational time, and strategic time. Clock time is what each of us have every day, namely the same 24 hours. We manage it the best we can, but the clock keeps moving forward. Operational time refers to the amount of time it takes to implement change. Depending on the size of the change being implemented, this can take 90 days to 18 months. Still, it has a finite beginning, middle and end. The real challenge for many leaders is to comprehend the pace and magnitude of strategic time. Here we commit to goals and objectives which may take from 5 to 7 years. In some cases, if we are setting big goals related to changing an entire business model or organizational culture, it may take 10 years to implement this level of change.
Good leaders focus on clock time and operational time. Each day, they try to be as productive as possible and attempt to improve the implementation of new processes and systems as efficiently as possible. Great leaders do these two things too, but the difference is that they comprehend strategic time. Here they play the long game and recognize that in order to be successful through out multiple change cycles over time, they need to build healthy teams and a healthy work culture. By doing this consistently over time, they are creating a shared mindset where all involved understand that every day we do the best we can, i.e. clock time, and that every day we implement the current strategic plan, i.e. operational time. But all of this is influenced and modified by strategic time, i.e. our commitment to meet the ever-evolving needs of our customers, our employees and the communities in which we serve.
Every year, from my vantage point, great leaders are successful in the world of organizational change, because they are committed to creating regular time for reflection and inner clarity. Next, they are deeply committed to developing a healthy work environment based on trust, respect and a commitment to purpose. Finally, they have the capacity to recognize the difference between clock time, operational time and strategic time. When these three skill sets come together in a single person, their team and then within the organization, they can create successful, long term organizational change, and be resilient in the face of instability, disruption and chaos.
Real change is hard work. It takes time, commitment and effort. Understanding the above three keys to success is one step in that journey. The challenge now is to translate it into disciplined action. And then to be willing to do it, day after day, quarter after quarter, year after year. As John Maxwell wrote many years ago, “Leadership develops daily, not in a day.”The same is true for organizational change. It is a daily commitment to action that will not be completed in a single day.
No comments:
Post a Comment