Change Whisperer on ProjectManagement.com

Having established, in Post 1 of this series, that strategy is “just another good idea” until it is implemented and churning out results, and that there is no single turn-key methodology for executing strategy, we then turned our attention first to the “go to” methodology: project management.  In Post 2, we recognized that there are two dominant project management methodologies: The Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) approach and PRINCE2?and we explored PMI’s approach.

Now, I am no expert in PRINCE2, so I found one to share insights with us.  Even better, Richard Batchelor is an international change management consultant, trained project manager (certified in PRINCE2) and certified human resources professional. He has the street cred of many successful change implementations under his belt. Rich has kindly agreed to write an insider’s overview of PRINCE2 for us.

So, what is PRINCE2?   

PRINCE2 project management is a methodology used widely in the United Kingdom, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. It also has some pockets of use through public service organizations in Asia and Africa. It was born of the UK government project methodology that was needed to deliver IT projects in the 1980s and is an evolution of styles and principles first used in the early days of mass IT project installations.

The PRINCE2 that we see today is fundamentally that which was launched in 1996 as a standard method in UK government. As its origins are in public service, it places a significant weight on assurance principles for value, risk, and issue management. It also carries with it a bureaucracy of multitudes of documents required throughout the project cycle.

As with most project methodology, PRINCE2 is methodical and somewhat linear in its activity cycle. However, it does have some hints of agile and scrum principles, allowing reiterations in an almost cyclic or iterative solutioning method during the activity cycle. This can be a positive or negative—it ensures the best solution is delivered to the client or customer, but can also mean timelines can be stretched and delivery goals pushed back when activity intensifies at times.

The name PRINCE2 comes from the acronym for “PRojects IN a Controlled Environment” with the 2 to recognize the second iteration of the methodology (a previous method used was called PROMPTII). It is a closed project environment, supporting a very strict regime of preventing project creep and clearly defining scope at the outset in the Project Initiation Documents. (Since 2009, the PID has been accepted as multiple documents and not necessarily a single publication.) However, the adaptability of the methods do support its application in a variety of purposes and environments—it is extremely objective and the sequence of activity prevents any significant subjectivity, which is good in supporting fairness and transparency for cultural- and people-based projects.

The PRINCE2 process

The cycle of activity in a PRINCE2 project goes from start-up through initiation, directing, and ultimately to delivery. The directing period is where most activity takes place and I personally call this the project leadership area. This is where the project is fundamentally managed, using planning, delegation, monitoring, and control of activities, maybe even in sequential or concurrent phases. Here you have the assurance elements of risk mitigation, issue resolution, and communications plans.

The client is, at the very least, expected to sit on the project board, but is normally the project executive, the term used for sponsor in PRINCE2. They convene regular board meetings and give considerable time to the management of project communications, identification of risk and subsequent mitigations, and identification of issues that have to be carried through the project timeframe. There is also opportunity for discussing exceptions to the project plan, with the project manager, key stakeholders, and the project executive having a board meeting for decision-making and solving project problems. As some of the many documents prepared during the project delivery period fulfill the need to inform progress and completion of activities, little time is necessary for general project discussion at the board meetings. One of the seven core principles of PRINCE2 is that it manages by exception, doing only what is needed at that point in time to keep the project on track for successful delivery.

I don’t want to get caught up too much in activity details, as I just want to give you a feel of the PRINCE2 project management methodology, but it is important to highlight some of these elements as it reinforces the earlier comments about objectivity and clear focus for projects using this method.

PRINCE2 manages six key variables

A PRINCE2 project recognizes six key variables that encase the controlled environment within which it operates:

• Costs
• Timescales
• Quality
• Scope
• Risk
• Benefits

The seven core principles

PRINCE2 accepts that certain tools and techniques used throughout the project should have been obtained elsewhere, namely people management activities, Gantt charts, critical path analysis, corporate quality assurance, and financial control and value analysis. Although utilized within a project to greater and lesser degrees, these are skill sets that are not taught as part of PRINCE2?instead, the concentration is on activity management and the required management of resources to deliver.

The other principles include the following:

• Ongoing justification of the business case. Throughout the project, the business case should still be valid, or the benefits will not be realized.
• Also, learning from experience—I mentioned that the project will go through iterations at times to deliver the best solution; this is an iterative learning activity.
• Roles and responsibilitiesof all members of project teams and their board must be clearly defined; a series of phases to delivery must also be clearly defined.
• The final two principles are to focus on product delivery—your aim for the project should always be to deliver what you set out to do, hence references to limiting scope creep— and to flex to the environment within which the project functions.

It is said that, without application of the seven principles, no project is truly a PRINCE2 project. Perhaps that’s all you need to know, but I think any project is much more than the principles it is built upon. It is the convergence of principle, practice, and people to deliver its goal.

Rich has extensive experience in managing change on large-scale projects within the public sector. He is PRINCE2 certified and also an active and founding member of the Association of Change Management Professionals, an accredited internationally educated human resources professional and member of the Human Resources Professional Association in Ontario, Canada.  You can find Rich’s blog “Making Change Happen” here, his profile on LinkedIn here, and you can follow him on Twitter @RichBatchelor.

Any more PRINCE2 professionals out there? Please do comment.

The next post in the series is a review of Change Management methodologies and how they fit into strategy execution.

Strategies identify “what” needs to change. Project management provides a structure for “how.” Some go so far as to say that “projects are the vehicles of change.” 

The most common organizational flow is this:

1. The leadership team analyzes the market and documents a 3-, 5-, or 10-year strategic plan.
2. Each functional leader takes it back to his or her division and identifies initiatives that will serve the strategic direction. (For example, if the strategy calls for integrating global systems for x% efficiency, then the leader may choose to select and implement an ERP system.)
3. A team is assembled to execute each current initiative.  The team usually includes people who have full-time jobs that will be impacted by the initiative and who will have important insights as to what this organization specifically needs.  It may include additional project-specific resources.
4. The team needs an interim leader—a project manager (PM).  The PM’s role is to guide the team through initiation, planning, design, implementation, monitoring, closing, and post mortem.  
5. Project managers use a structured process to ensure delivery across three dimensions: scope, time, and budget.

History for context

It is important to realize that project management is a relatively young discipline, born in the height of the industrial age.  In the 1950s, project management was formalized in the construction industry to systemize and synchronize heavy engineering projects: “At that time, two mathematical project-scheduling models were developed—the ‘Critical Path Method’ (CPM) as a joint venture between DuPont Corporation and Remington Rand Corporation for managing plant maintenance projects, and the ‘Program Evaluation and Review Technique’ or PERT, developed by Booz Allen Hamilton as part of the United States Navy's (in conjunction with the Lockheed Corporation) Polaris missile submarine program.” (1)   A tactical, logistics-based approach made a lot of sense for such initiatives; the strengths of the approach were increasingly modified for private enterprise.

These approaches were codified into basically two schools: The Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) approach, predominantly used in North America, and PRINCE2, which was derived from a UK government initiative.  The spheres of influence seem to radiate out of these centers.

This post addresses PMI’s approach, and the next post will address PRINCE2. 

What is “Project Management”—per PMI?

PMI provides a definition of “What is Project Management”on its website (2).  Here are a couple of relevant excerpts for our discussion:

• Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, and techniques to execute projects effectively and efficiently. It’s a strategic competency for organizations, enabling them to tie project results to business goals and, thus, better compete in their markets.
• PMI defines five processes: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing.
• There are nine areas of knowledge: integration, scope, time, cost, quality, procurement, human resources, communications, and risk management. 
• PMI’s methodology is best known for focusing on the “triple constraint” of scope, time, and cost.
• Practitioners are certified and place the designation Project Management Professional (PMP)® after their names. PMI offers further designations—Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM)®, Program Management Professional (PgMP)®, PMI Agile Certified Practitioner (PMI-ACP)^SM, PMI Risk Management Professional (PMI-RMP)® and PMI Scheduling Professional (PMI-SP)®.
• Depending on the size of the initiative, a program manager is retained to manage a group of projects. Where an individual project is of sufficient size or complexity, a project manager is retained to run it. In very large programs, several project managers will report to a lead project manager.
• The senior program or project manager works with the business owner (often referred to as the “sponsor”) to plan and execute the project.

Discussion

In my view, project management is an essential discipline on most incremental change and on all transformational change. The challenge for many organizations is figuring out the answer to the question, “How much project management rigor do we need?” The rigor rises with the degree of difficulty of the project. 

At the level of transformational change, the requirement at the highest levels expands into program or portfolio management, which provides for a rolled-up and comprehensive view of the current status of all projects supporting the strategy (again against scope, time, and budget). 

To all the Project Management Professionals (PMPs) out there: if you feel that I have missed anything, please do comment.

What’s next?  A review of PRINCE2 and then we peer into the murky waters of change management?a younger discipline that is advancing rapidly. Stay tuned… in fact perhaps you’d like to subscribe. If you are not reading this post on my home site you can link over to The Change Whisperer(http://gailseverini.wordpress.com/) and look for the subscribe button top left.

References:

1. “Project Management”, Wikipedia
2. Project Management Institute (PMI)

Related Posts:

• Securing ROI in break-out strategy overview?strategy execution methodologies series. Post 1
• Crack or Chasm between Project Management and Change Management?

To be an effective change agent one needs influence in the organization. Influence is built on many dimensions of trust?trust that the change agent is legitimately qualified and experienced to execute the scope of work, trust that the change agent has the best interests of the organization at heart, and trust in the relationship with the sponsor.

This trust is earned, one relationship at a time, and that usually takes a lot of time. In transformational change, where time is of the essence, it is essential to expedite the development of trust.

In preparing for a panel, “Success Secrets of Trusted Advisors” (http://www.acmp.info/conference/guthridge-nestor-nystrom-severini.htm) at the Association of Change Management Professionals on April 2, 2012, I spent some time meeting with four great co-panel members, reading thought leadership, speaking with a few colleagues, and reflecting. In the session, we had terrific engagement from a huge room of practitioners. The Open Space generated several topics and I wish I could have gotten around to all of them.

Many, many ideas and tips were shared. The following ten tips are the ones that really resonated with me—they reflect input from all of these sources. These are not meant to be prescriptive, rather many are aspirational for me.

Foundational mindsets

1. Trust yourself first and respect your own presence. Trust begins with trusting yourself, knowing both your capabilities and strengths as well as knowing when to go to colleagues and advisors for support. This kind of trust manifests itself in confidence; in turn, it inspires others to trust you.
This confidence is conveyed in our own “style” and each style can be compelling. Whether one is decisive, assertive, and bold; or thoughtful, deliberate, and soft-spoken, each has “presence.” The important thing here is to be authentic to yourself.

2. Serve, with discretion. Change agents serve the organization through the initiating sponsor. The mindset of service is a choice that drives specific behaviors, standards, and dynamics with the sponsor. And we all know that developing a great relationship with the “top dog” is motherhood, and yet difficult and complex.
Concurrently, keep in mind that sponsors have “face” within the organization and that the coaching we do should be done privately to help them shine in public.

One of the participants in the Open Space (my apologies—with the fast pace I did not get a name) re-framed this as “serve, don’t save,” which I really liked. We cannot take “ownership” for the sponsor’s work. This inadvertently usurps the commitment the organization needs from them.

Be consistently, and repeatedly, clear with the sponsors and others as to your role and priorities. Jim Bohn, Johnson Controls Inc., offered a phrase that really resonated with me—he suggested a candid conversation with the sponsor up front where we might offer “you can lean hard on me through this change.”
3. Invest in the mastery journey. “Masters don’t say, ‘I am a master.’ Masters say, ‘I am a student’.” (Daryl Conner, Conner Partners). This underpins the notion of the progression to “trusted advisor” status as a journey, a developmental continuum. In Daryl’s paper, The Trusted Advisor, he notes five levels: Opinion Provider, Subject-Matter Expert, Valued Source, Influential Resource, and Trusted Advisor. Each level brings specific value and relates to degrees of empowerment, influence, and authority with the sponsor.

4. Sponsors are targets first. It may be tempting to think that leaders already “get it” (i.e., understand the change and have committed at the “get-go”). However, this is rarely true. In the sponsor cascade, every leader taking on this role needs an opportunity first to respond as an individual, in order to progress on his or her own adoption path. These leaders will experience similar concerns?and their questions and resistance must be surfaced and resolved before they can enroll their directs.

Furthermore, sponsors are often in the middle of the fray?they experience high levels of stress through the change and we are well advised to be sensitive to their wellbeing.

Acknowledging and supporting the sponsor’s own journey is an opportunity to earn their trust. It is a validation that we understand the process and how people might react.

5. Position your passion—practice “passionate neutrality.” Having invested so much of ourselves in learning and loving this discipline, it is easy to become an “evangelist” and to “oversell.” Find a place to express your passion in context. (I think this tip comes from Mike Nestor, Bayer Group.)
“Passionate neutrality” is a term we use to describe balancing the polarity between investing ourselves and our experience in the analysis and recommendations with the explicit agreement to yield to, and fully support, the sponsor’s own decisions. It is critical in the trust equation for the sponsor to know that you will defer to his or her decision and support it 100%—even if he or she chooses not to follow your recommendations.

Logistics

6. Contract for conditional trust directly with the sponsors. The nature of working through change requires a lot of trust. No matter how much knowledge and experience we bring to the table, our effectiveness is bound in symbiotic performance with the change team and, in particular, with the sponsor. However, in many new relationships this will not yet have been earned. A “contract” serves as a proxy—permission to behave as if trust was in place, under specific conditions.

In “Addressing Sponsor-Agent Relationship Issues” (http://changethinking.net/sponsoragent-relationship/addressing-sponsor-agent-relationship-issues-free-download) on his blog, Daryl provides the Contract for Sponsor-Agent Working Relationships that we use. It tees up explicit roles and responsibilities. Negotiating it up front provides for a reference as we proceed. Remember, however, that all contracts are secured during the “uninformed optimism” phase so the party really may not know what they are agreeing to. Real contracting happens in the execution. The key is to review the contract in the moment and the test is whether it is accepted in real time.

It is critical to have direct access to all of the sponsors. Be sure to contract for this up front—make it a condition of your work. No agent can be successful going through a project manager or subordinate.

Behaviors

7. Be consistent and reliable. We all know people who show up on time and are prepared. While it may sound obvious, it is difficult to do this consistently in a fast-paced environment, yet it is foundational to building trust. And, it is actually neurologically proven. In “SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others” (http://www.davidrock.net/files/NLJ_SCARFUS.pdf) David Rock identifies “five domains of human social experience: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Related, and Fairness.” He describes how each of these are drivers of social behavior and how “Certainty” works: “Meeting expectations generates an increase in dopamine levels in the brain, a reward response.”

8. Stretch but don’t overreach. Referring back to the concept of levels, where are you on the continuum with your sponsor(s)? Is the sponsor open to hearing your opinions on this specific change, on his or her performance as sponsor? This depends on the level you are capable of and the degree of empowerment you have earned. Be honest with yourself as to where you are on the continuum. If you overreach, you can lose credibility (Brian Gorman, Conner Partners).

9. Be direct about the risk of failure. Leaders are typically stellar performers in their operational roles?this often involves incremental or transitional change (modest, iterative improvements in systems, processes, etc.) and adoption can often be garnered through communication and training. Many such environments have a fairly “compliant” culture, so they have often been very successful with change—incremental change.
However, as change practitioners know, transformational change is radically different and is usually a shock to such systems. Leaders may underestimate the impact and the resistance that is impending. In this case, the change practitioner’s challenge is to re-frame the leader’s understanding of the risk.
One of the first things we do is an Executive Briefing on the nature of transformational change. More than 40 years of research and practice provides some compelling findings. Understanding the patterns of winning and losing often helps leaders make choices that are more informed. The key lead-in to that conversation is a classic Dr. Phil: “So, in your organization’s recent history of implementing transformational change ‘How’s that workin’ for ya?’” (Many call any project that finishes a “success,” but the harsh reality is that many stall out or are displaced).

The tough part here is that inexperienced sponsors are often suspicious of our warnings. We cannot let that deter us from the most direct advice we are capable of. What we risk in credibility now we will certainly lose if we are right and too timid. Trust can only come through the provision of advice that we believe.

10. Tune in to the sponsors?bring resistance to the surface and provide positive feedback. Help sponsors surface their own resistance first (remember sponsors are targets before they can become sponsors). Help them to surface resistance in their teams. Probing this is part of our role and skillful navigation of these conversations will build trust. It demonstrates what we claim to know.

It should go without saying, but don’t assume that leaders are “all-knowing.” Leaders benefit from positive feedback and acknowledgement (privately) as much as anyone going through change. Furthermore, this reinforces that we are progressing together with the role and the work.

Kudos and huge thank you’s to my colleagues on the panel:

• Liz Guthridge—Session Facilitator, Managing Coach and Consultant, Connect Consulting Group
• Deborah Nystrom—Open Space facilitator, Owner/Partner, Reveln Consulting & CMRsite.com
• Jim Bohn, PhD., Global Director, CMO, Johnson Controls, Inc.
• Michael Nestor, Vice President, Head of Change Management, Bayer Group

Thanks to Liz for the invitation and for all her insight and coordination. Thanks to Deb for the photos, available here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/stella12/7061414243/in/set-72157629376675636/), including snapshots of the flipchart pages here. Liz and Deb have also written blog posts about this subject and this event?they are here (http://connectconsultinggroup.com/build-relationships-not-sme-in-trusted-change-advisor-role/) and here (http://revelnconsulting.posterous.com/the-trusted-advisors-with-open-space-event-wa), respectively. It is always a pleasure to spend time thinking with Liz, Deb, Jim, and Mike.

What do you think? Do you have more tips for becoming a trusted advisor?

Most organisations have developed internal processes and capabilities for executing strategy. However, most of these are built for the transitional strategies that organizations face in average years (familiar improvements that modify systems and processes).  

The break-out from the recession of 2008 – 11 created market disruption and seismic opportunities and threats. Strategies that take advantage of these shifts are typically transformational in nature (i.e., the nature of the change and the inherent risks are radically different).

The first execution choice that organisations face is, “Can we really ‘muscle through’, or do we need to change the way we change?”  When the risk of failure, or consequences of short-fall are too high, then organisations suddenly get very serious about governance, processes, and capabilities.

What is transformational change? We screen for several characteristics that include:

• The future state must be so different as to be almost unrecognizable (think Nokia, Kodak)
• Modifications in behaviors, beliefs, and assumptions (culture shift) are essential
• There are multiple interdependent components to integrate
• There is likely to be a shift in the politics of the organization
• A significant number of people will be unwilling or unable to complete the journey 

Furthermore, such initiatives often take on the “do or die” proportions of business imperatives. 

These initiatives warrant additional rigor:  an end-to-end (concept to realization) process, more oversight, more accountability, and more follow-through.

This series will provide an overview of the conventional best practices for strategy execution, discuss the gaps in their application to transformational change, and explore advancements that can secure and accelerate ROI.

The hand-off from Strategy

First of all, let’s understand where strategy comes from and how it is deployed into the organization.

Every few years, or sometimes in the face of a seismic market shift, organizations do a comprehensive strategic review. This scrutinizes the market for opportunity and the organisation for efficiency. Often consulting firms like McKinsey & Company, Bain & Company, and Boston Consulting Group are brought in to conduct the review and engage the C-Suite in developing the Strategic Plan for the next 3-5-10 years.

Once the strategy is complete and approved by the Board, the leadership team re-convenes and the initiatives are divided up. Most of the allocations are logical, assigned to the division in which they will be implemented and overseen by the head of that area (e.g., finance initiatives are taken by the CFO). The trickier assignments are those driven by technology (where the benefits accrue in another department / division) and those that cross silos (where benefits accrue in multiple departments/divisions). With that, the individual divisions / departments assemble their delivery teams. Most often a business lead is assigned, a project manager is recruited (internally or externally) and then the rest of the team is identified and assembled.

What are the strategy execution methodologies?

Almost without exception, a form of project (program or portfolio) management is deployed. Sometimes change management is also required and integrated.

Project Management

Project management is a structured process for organizing change. Generally speaking, it deals with the logistics of implementation ( i.e., what needs to be changed, when does this need to be completed, who do we need working on this, what is our budget, and how are we tracking). It creates a governance structure with roles, decision rights and responsibilities, details specifications around objectives and deliverables, and sets up a tracking process.  

The project work runs concurrently alongside “business as usual”, leveraging the many of the same resources and augmenting with some specialists. In addition, it builds the new system / process / capability while the old one is still in operation, manages the transition over to the new system / process capability, and decommissions the old.

Project teams typically include a business owner, often called a sponsor, who is responsible for making decisions, and a project manager who coordinates the work associated with making the change and managing the project. Additional resources often include business analysts and other specialists whose skills are required to build and implement the new “thing”. Subject matter experts (SMEs) from within the organization are often seconded to the project as well, bringing resources such as content specialists (e.g., underwriters if the change is a new insurance product), marketing managers, communications specialists, training coordinators, etc. Further resources often include members of other affected departments, or those who will be instrumental in the success of the initiative, (e.g., a call centre lead and sales representative in the case of a new insurance product launch).

The larger the change, the more expansive the project management approach. For example, if a bank decides to break into the insurance market, and the initiative is the launch of a subsidiary, the work is often structured as a portfolio or program where individual projects are grouped into a delivery hierarchy of groups of projects. In this model, one portfolio manager might have three program managers reporting to him/her, and each of the project managers might have a number of project managers as direct reports.

Project management seems to have gotten a lot of traction over the past 20 years—most medium and almost all large organizations are using it. The predominant methodologies are The Project Management Institute (PMI), which is common in North America, and PRINCE2, which has real traction in the UK (for reasons that will become obvious in a subsequent post) and in some of Europe.

Change Management

Change management is a substantively younger discipline than project management (even if we measure from Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory dating from the 1940s). That theory is based on organisational psychology principles regarding how humans transition through change. If it requires changing the work that people do and how they think about that work, then change management needs to be integrated in the implementation approach.

Some of the basic ideas include:

• It is difficult for employees, who have developed competency in certain areas, to leave that behind, and to learn and execute in new ways. 
• The case for change must be clear to everyone—on a business and personal level.
• Even so, it is about more than communication and training. It includes developing understanding, surfacing resistance, and encouraging experimentation.
• The old school reliance on compliance is insufficient and exorbitantly expensive. 
• Engagement builds commitment. Commitment delivers realization of business results.
• Governance is critical—specifically, there are best practices for leadership (sponsorship) at all levels in the organization.
• Change is dynamic—the tee-up is not enough. Progress must be monitored, resistance defused and commitment nurtured.

A handful of thought leaders and practitioners have been active in this arena since the 1980s. In terms of process maturity: there is considerable consistency in high level principles, some consistency in general application, and very few public methodologies.

Next

The next three posts will provide a high-level review of the most common project management methodologies (Project Management Institute and PRINCE2) and change management methodologies, together with a commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of the typical application. In the finale, we will look at how they come together (or not) to optimize a holistic delivery approach right through to results realisation.

Seems like many organizations are looking for the secret to effective strategic execution?the one thing that will fix the so-called 70% failure rate. The problem is (and we all know it deep down), there are no simple solutions for complex problems. In this series, I will look at the conventional “silver bullets” and explore why none work alone and each is only moderately effective in its common form.

“Change leadership” is a favorite clarion call among change practitioners. And, don’t get me wrong, I too believe that “it” (once we can agree on what “it” is) is important. However, I believe that by promoting change leadership as a panacea we are setting ourselves up for failure. I realize that this is a bit of a controversial position to take?  I may be asking you to think differently about what you know. I will look at three points:

1. “Change leadership” is not “leadership”
2. Why is sponsorship regularly rated as the most important element for successful change if it’s not a silver bullet?
3. The punch line

Note: the context for this discussion is “strategic” change or “transformational” change. Our firm’s definition: “Transformational change is highly disruptive to the way people do their work. It generally affects a large portion of an organization, shifts the power dynamic, and requires changes in mindset and behaviors to be realized.” (1) This is very different than the more common incremental change.

1. “Change leadership” sounds like “leadership”

Yes, strategy is set by the leaders of the organization and, yes, they are accountable for its successful execution. And in that broad sense they inherit accountability for change leadership.

Most strategy requires leadership, not change leadership

The term “change leadership”, in most publicly available literature, tends to leverage great leadership practices and high-level processes - as if leading change is about leadership on steroids. And, despite the fact that many add “change management” to position descriptions as if it were only a competency, this does not automatically mean that leading this level of change is an extension of what the incumbent regularly does.

In mature industries, the largest organizations are like supertankers - many executives onboard during “business as usual” and are involved with incremental change only (e.g., implementing a product extension, a new technology within a single department, negotiating a big sale or outsourcing contract). They may be great “leaders” (great at motivating their teams, optimizing resources, running their part of the world, etc.), but many have never been a part of a complex, high-risk, company-wide strategic change.

Furthermore, the emphasis suggests that success is all about the leader. For me, the emphasis is backwards - great leaders recognize that the real power lies in their people. Here’s an interesting ratio: if leaders need a year to analyse strategic options, why do they assume that their people need only a couple of town halls, webcasts, or emails?

Transformational change, requiring real change leadership, is rare

Transformational change happens maybe once or twice in a senior executive’s career. Many great leaders have never implemented, or even been a part of, transformational change. Please re-read this statement?I am not kidding.

Transformational change is disruptive?it requires leaders to change how they think about the market, changing customer needs and demographics, competitive disruptions, the organization’s competitive strengths, product offering and development strategies, and distribution channels. Sometimes they have to consider these concurrently. Then they must help others change their own mindsets and move out of their comfort zones to work differently.

Sounds easy? It’s deceptively difficult?just ask a battle-worn turn-around specialist. Consider the increasing complexity of strategies that:

• Turn order-takers into passionate sales professionals or de-sensitized call center operators into empowered problem solvers

• Drive Lean Six Sigma capability and benefits

• Move hundreds of middle managers and clerks from an entrenched spaghetti mess of 20-yr-old systems over to ERP

• Bring competitors together in a merger or acquisition

• Transition from an “operational excellence” mindset to a “fail fast” innovation culture

It is true that the number of transformational strategies is increasing in response to seismic market shifts; however, they are still relatively rare. Examples of trends and companies affected would be:

• Wholesale business model shifts in response to US Health Care Reform
• Accelerated product cycles in technology and communications, (e.g ., FACEBOOK, RIM, Nokia and Kodak)
• Aggressive consolidations (e.g., in consumer products?Kraft’s acquisition of Cadbury)

Change leadership has to go beyond great leadership

The competencies and processes for leading transformational change are far from business as usual. Some will argue that the competencies are the same, just advanced. I am not convinced. Rather, I believe they are so advanced as to be different. Furthermore, there is advantage in separating change leadership out as a role (sponsorship) where the competencies and responsibilities can be clearly defined, discussed and contracted for.

So what’s so different about “sponsorship”?

Many methodologies support a similar definition of Sponsorship as noted here. I will not go so far as to call it an industry standard although it might be emerging as such. Sponsorship recognizes the unique requirements of the leader(s) of the change. The following just scratches the surface as examples:

• Sponsorship cannot be delegated?it is organic. A sponsor is accountable for transitioning the targets (the people whose job is changing, without whom the results cannot be generated of through the change efficiently and effectively. Role maps are often used to track who the change targets are, who their managers are, and on up to the single manager who has oversight over all of the change targets. We define this person the Initiating Sponsor. Without going into too much detail, there are also roles for Primary Sustaining Sponsors and Local Sustaining Sponsors. This map lets us see who has actual leverage in the organization?who controls consequences over the change targets.

• Sponsors are targets first. Until a sponsor is committed to the change, he/she cannot authentically engage others. By defining sponsorship as a role, separate from leadership, we can treat it differently.

• Our research indicates that there are specific mindsets of successful sponsors. Here are three examples (paraphrased) (2):

- Start with yourself?Incumbent sponsors can’t transform their organizations unless they are willing to be transformed themselves.
- Discomfort?The job of sponsors isn’t to keep people happy during change, it’s to help them succeed despite their discomfort.
- Change is messy?It requires a high tolerance for ambiguity, managing paradox instead of contradictions, making tough decisions with insufficient data, and learning from failure.

There are deep bodies of work on this subject. This is just a sampling of the richness of thinking that can happen when “sponsorship” is recognized as a unique role.

And, still, sponsorship alone is not enough.

2. So why does research identify sponsorship (or leadership, if you must), as the #1 requirement?

The question usually goes along the lines of, “What is the most important element of implementing change?” Respondents say, almost in unison, “sponsorship”. The problem I have here is that both the question and the answer are naively interpreted:

1. The question leans in the direction of implying that if you do this one thing right everything else will flow. We all want to believe this and fall into this trap.
2. We have all been conditioned to believe that the most important thing is sponsorship. It is conventional wisdom?everybody says it.

Why is it so easy to fall into this assumption? Well, it’s because both the question and the answer are partly right. However, the real power is in the white space, in what is omitted:

• There is an optimal sequence but no single element is more important than the others. Sponsorship is one of several critical elements.

• The elements are symbiotic (3).

It is true that contracting early for full sponsorship is one of the patterns of successful transformation, but there are implicit assumptions in this statement that need to be understood to be leveraged:

• The usual assumption is this: If we get sponsorship right then he/she can make all the other elements happen, can “roll out the red carpet”, as it were. If this were true then transformational change should be easy. In reality, sponsors (even the “leader”) face constraints in their organizations and in their markets. Experienced sponsors and agents anticipate, analyse and navigate these compromises deliberately.

• “Full sponsorship” alludes to the full array of the role. Sponsors really need to understand what is required of them before they can fully commit to that role.

• There are gems in the phrase “contracting”. The optimal relationship between sponsor and change agent is a true partnership, with the change agent supporting the sponsor from the shadows. Such a relationship is based on mutual trust and respect, where the sponsor relies on the agent to be an expert in strategy execution, to inform and then to support.

So, yes, you can see that I agree sponsorship is important and it must happen early. However, there are many other foundational elements. Our research has identified 15 risk factors?Sponsorship is #6. Others include: deep understanding and alignment around the real intent and impact of this particular strategic change, understanding and willingness to address the culture of the organization, and integrated management of the delivery of the whole portfolio of change.

3. The punch line

Executing strategy is highly complex and requires integrated thinking. The temptation to rely on the “top of the house” or to simplify as “most important” is a misguided, sometimes self-serving, deception.

It is not that the leader’s role is so important or difficult (although it is both). It is that this role comes first and is foundational. It is a part of a larger approach, like the chassis of a car or the hull of a boat. If all you had was great sponsorship, would your strategy be executed quickly, deeply, and sustainably? Of course not. Like most choices in life, it is not “either/or”.

References:

(1) Daryl Conner, Change Thinking Glossary (www.changethinking.net)

(2) “Realization Mindsets for Sponsors: Separating Success from Failure during Transformational Change”, Conner Partners White Paper, 2010-2012.

(3) Symbiotic here refers to “the association of two different organisms living attached to each other or one within the other”, The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 1983, 1982