Launching Change Versus
Realizing New Outcomes
What do Social Security solvency, the Department of Homeland
Security in the U.S., and “immigration reform” have
in common? They are divisive, expensive, well-covered -- by
traditional media plus bloggers -- and little understood by
the average voter.
On issue after issue, because no collective definition of
the problem has taken place, no one can put forth a solution
that is trusted by a majority of the electorate. So we end up
with a firestorm of “debate” -- except it isn’t
really debate, because neither side is HEARING the other, and
the “audience” -- voters -- either turns off or
tunes out.
Rather than bore into pension reform, DHS, or similar struggles
(stalled United Nations reform, the low-level chaos from rebuilding
New Orleans), this web display clarifies the repeating patterns.
Our contention is that, whether it’s unplanned or intentional,
“change” is a journey that can be mapped.
And the target markets for this document are:
- Elected leaders who intend a profound legacy;
- Public-sector managers who work with
elected or appointed executives to implement change; and
- Overseas innovators who refuse to put
up with any more national or systemic failures.
So it can be gotten through quickly, what follows is a “high
level” treatment. Key terms, when you slide your cursor
across them, are defined in pop-up windows. More scholarly versions
of our methodical approach to public governance are available
in some of the links at the bottom of this screen.
MAKING YOUR MAP -- AND USING IT TO STEER
CHANGE
Maybe the change being advocated is a new legislative policy.
Or perhaps it’s the application and implementation of
a new policy within the administration of a program. In either
case, and almost any other one you could name, “change”
as a process plays out via four roles. Getting clear about these
roles makes the difference between success and failure for the
change project, and perhaps the entire governing agenda.
SPONSOR means the person or group that needs
no permission to define and commence the change. AGENTS
implement the change. TARGETS are those who
must actually DO the changing. As they come to understand the
changes you’d like them to endorse, they can also become
implementers. Which leaves the biggest deck of wild cards in
any reform agenda: ADVOCATES and ADVOCACY
GROUPS. At the Public Governance Institute, we define
“advocate” as the individual or group that wants
to achieve change but lacks the power to implement it or to
change the needed policy. In the public sector, advocacy groups
are far more influential -- as an array of personalities and
forces -- than are their counterparts inside private-sector
organizations.
In governance, all of those role-definitions shift. Knowing
who’s playing what role, and where and when, is vital
to executing your policy goals.
The public policymaker or department manager also needs to
know: (1) Who will “resist” and why? (2) Are we
committed enough to sustain the change drive through hardship
and adversity? And (3) how much change can be accepted by the
groups and institutions being affected, and on what timetable?
To effectively implement change, you need two disciplines.
The first is project-management, the second is change leadership:
Project management deals with the logistics
of implementation (redoing the organizational chart, defining
functional milestones, scheduling, training, cost-control --
that kind of thing).
Change leadership uses behavioral science
research and techniques (developing commitment, communicating
effectively, minimizing resistance, fostering resilience) to
deal with the unfolding dynamics within the surrounding human
landscapes.
How do you get from here to there? As a presidential team,
as an economic entity, or even as a whole society? The path
is not easy, and the steps do overlap. In conceptual terms,
though, they are simple.
A SYSTEMATIC EXAMPLE
If a major corporation, skilled in change-management, attempted
a merger/realignment anywhere close to the scale of a Department
of Homeland Security, what would they do?
(1) Think through the true price of change
before making the decision to proceed. In addition to the financial
costs, they would:
a. Define success. What would people actually need to be doing
differently in order to achieve the level and type of performance
required from the new organization?
b. Sketch the human landscape among the various groups affected.
Who are the targets? The sponsors? The agents? The advocates?
What challenges are likely to surface as they begin to work
together?
c. List the “currencies” in which success will be
defined. Will success mean increased visibility for particular
individuals? More effective detection of threats to job security?
Savings in dollars compared with alternative strategies, or
with doing nothing?
d. List the potential barriers to success. Is sponsorship strong
throughout your coalition or society? How might the new ways
of operating encounter individual and cultural resistance?
(2) Staffing the initiative with people who
are knowledgeable about the human elements of change, and especially
primed to educate and measure.
(3) Managing risk before it can become a
threat. Rather than waiting for human landscape-type surprises
and reacting to them, the implementation team would:
a. Build a comprehensive plan that integrates operational,
technical, and human elements and that enables them to measure,
manage, and mitigate risks.
b. Ensure strong sponsorship by educating leaders about their
roles, confronting poor sponsorship if needed, and put systems
in place to “cascade” the executive’s sponsorship
of this change in an overt manner. Front-line public leaders
and senior bureaucrats can’t be "back-channeling"
this drive. Instead, they should set up reward systems so employees
who contribute to the change's success come out winners, while
those who resist for extended periods meet a different fate.
c. Surface resistance by listening to the real-world concerns
of agencies and staffers being affected: Will their carpools
be mangled? Will the lunch group be broken up? Will they still
report to the manager they've trained for all these years?
d. Start early to prepare people with the skills they need for
their new roles.
Sound like too much work? Well, how badly do you -- as senior
officer of your government -- want the ultimate result?
You can spend the same $5 billion, save some planning time
during the first six months, rely on intuition and “vibes”
rather than metrics -- and explain in 2008 why the project is
delivering one-10th of what you promised. That course is always
an option, and our research shows it to be a popular one!
YOU SUPPLY THE DESTINATION, WE’LL
HELP MAKE THE MAP
Facing a global landscape filled with new demands and directions,
no society can afford a government that is ineffective in delivering
change. Corporate leaders and elected officials alike need methods
that go beyond "advocating" better policies or "announcing"
new laws that purport to change large systems and actually deliver
real change with durable results.
Our methodologies come from 30 years of corporate experience
-- and success -- from Atlanta-based ODR®. Their experience,
pooled with ours, shows clear patterns by leaders who fail at
change -- and similarly plain patterns used by those who deliver
the goods. Our methodologies have been tested in the real world.
That’s, after all, what you seek to change, right?
Before your start the change journey, call your mapmakers.
To measure your team, organization or electorate's ability to
absorb change, and thereby reduce the risks, contact us:
Phone: 703-837-0800
E-mail: info@publicgov.org
|
