GE’s CAP compared to Prosci’s ADKAR

I’ve been doing some work recently for a client that uses the Prosci ADKAR model for change management.  I’ve been asked a few times how the ADKAR model/process compares with the CAP model/process.  I’m not an expert in ADKAR by any means, but based on what I’ve learned so far, the table above summarizes the high-level comparison.

One difference that I’ve observed (on an admittedly small sample of Prosci-based project work – so I could be wrong here…) is that while both focus on stakeholder alignment with the goals of the project team, CAP places a great deal of emphasis on ensuring alignment WITHIN the project team, especially in the early stages of the project.  Based on my experience, this is a critical success factor that must be included in any change management strategy.

Another difference seems to be that CAP digs deep into understanding the potential & real sources of resistance to change before developing an influence strategy.

Prosci/ADKAR places a far heavier emphasis on communications (i.e., they don’t know why) and training (i.e., they don’t know how) to facilitate change.

More to come…

Pecha Kucha & Leading from the Heart

Recently I have been investigating alternative group facilitation techniques and presentation formats.  I was lucky enough to meet Jon Mueller from 800CEORead.com who introduced me to the Pecha Kucha presentation format.  The basic premise is that you must use 20 slides that advance automatically after 20 seconds each – no pausing.  You’ll see it referred to as the 20×20 format.  You can learn more details about it here.  To make a long story short, Jon convinced me that the best way to familiarize myself with the format was to do one.  So I did.  I can tell you that the format will absolutely revolutionize the way you think about preparing and presenting any content.

Anyway…

I’ve always been a believer in, and an advocate for, leading from your heart (See the brilliant Simon Sinek presentation at TED in this blog).   I thought I would try my hand at inspiring others by putting my own heart on my sleeve.   It seemed like a good idea at the time.  I had no idea how many different ways this endeavor would challenge me.  I have spoken to very large audiences, facilitated teams of high-profile C-suite executives, but this was easily the most nervous I’ve been before a presentation in twenty plus years.  It turned out to be a fabulous experience.

I’ve attached a link to a video of the presentation.  You will learn a lot about me, and hopefully, what I believe about Dreaming Big Dreams and Never Stop Doing the Things You Love will inspire you too. 

Pecha Kucha Nite Milwaukee #10

Please visit the Pecha Kucha.org website, find an event near you and attend!

Rethinking the Core Human Needs

Rethinking the Core Human Needs.

An interesting perspective on Maslow’s needs.  Very relevant to change management!  Good stuff.  As a colorful reminder – I borrowed this graphic from this linked post – just go to it!

Shaping a Vision & Mobilizing Commitment

 

Take  a few minutes to watch this video from Simon Sinek.  It applies directly to what leaders can do to ensure the success of a change initiative.   Don’t talk about the “what” or the “how” – make sure everyone understands the “why.”  Humans are hard-wired to make decisions based on emotions, not facts.  Appeal to their hearts, not their heads.

CAP Lessons from Front Page News

John Kotter on The Debt Crisis and Complacency

Check out this Op-ed from John Kotter in the July 13, 2011 Washington Post.  Great stuff.  Follow the links in the Post website to see other commentary from Mr. Kotter.

Deficit Reduction Plan Draws Scorn From Left and Right

By JACKIE CALMES

The New York Times – Published: November 11, 2010

WASHINGTON — By putting deep spending cuts and substantial tax increases on the table, President Obama’s bipartisan debt-reduction commission has exposed fissures in both parties, underscoring the volatile nature and long odds of any attempt to address the nation’s long-term budget problems.

Among Democrats, liberals are in near revolt against the White House over the issue, even as substantive and political forces push Mr. Obama to attack chronic deficits in a serious way. At the same time, Republicans face intense pressure from their conservative base and the Tea Party movement to reject any deal that includes tax increases, leaving their leaders with little room to maneuver in any negotiation and at risk of being blamed by voters for not doing their part.

The excerpt from the New York Times above is a classic example of one of the key principles of the Change Acceleration Process (CAP) – That the one sure-fire way to surface the hidden resistance you will encounter during your change initiative is to spell-out your vision in observable, actionable, measurable terms. Of course, the flip side of this, so clearly demonstrated in the headline above, is that when you don’t want any resistance to surface be sure to keep the discussion at the vision or the mindset/measures level.

The "Bulls-Eye Drill-Down"

During the run-up to the 2010 mid-term elections we heard both parties trumpet their vision in many ways; “Take our country back,” or “Restore the middle-class.” Most even took the next logical step to the mindsets/measures level; “Lower taxes, reduce the deficit, grow the economy, create jobs, and reach across the aisle…” Who could possibly be against these goals? No one. But that’s all they are – mindsets/measures parading as strategy. It’s not until you drill down to the “how” – the observable, measureable activities and behaviors that you will change – that any resistance comes to light (See the graphic above).

Now the bipartisan debt-reduction commission issues their report that contains many specifics (it still largely ignores the key issues of health care expenditures) such as raising taxes and means-testing social security.   While this is not actual legislation, or even a final plan, it does clarify the nature of what is necessary to achieve the mindset/measures.  Now the electorate can see how they might be impacted by what they’ve asked for.  Stand back!  As the old WWII saying goes, “If your taking flak your probably close to the target.”

Remember, humans are hard-wired to make decisions based on emotions first, logic second. And we are hard-wired to be risk-averse. Consequently, even though the math is obvious to anyone who has thought seriously about the problem, we are in denial about the impact of the changes we are asking for – we can fix the economy/deficit/country but it won’t impact me. Once someone spells out the measureable activities and behaviors required by the change, people see how they will be impacted and they react with resistance.

Most business leaders typically do a fair job articulating a vision, and even do a good job drilling down to the mindset/results level. For example, “We’re going to create a customer-centric, proactive, accountable business,” and “We’ll grow organically by 5% and reduce expenses by 5%.” Who is against that? But once they spell-out the means to achieve those goals; “Stratify your customers into top-20/bottom-80, conduct focus groups with top-10 and survey bottom-80. All customer contacts and results will be entered into the CRM. Conduct regional trend analysis and propose new products and services” – now the resistance surfaces!

There are rare cases where the logic for change is so compelling that there is little resistance to it – but these are rare cases.  If you are in the midst of a large-scale organizational change, and you are not facing any resistance, you may want to evaluate how well you’ve articulated the necessary actionable behavior changes you expect from your people.

To Be a Change Leader – Be the First Follower!

Please watch this 3 minute video on TED – it is self explanatory – “The first follower turns the ‘lone nut’ into a leader.”  Fantastic!

A Different Approach to Project Charters

What is a Project Charter?
A project charter is a document that is used to clarify the purpose and plan for a project. There are limitless variations of project charter templates available. All project charters include a statement of the problem to be solved, the goal of the project, the business case and the scope of the project (and may include a high-level process map). Charters may also include the customer(s), a high-level project plan and schedule, key stakeholders, estimated financial benefits, team members and their roles, assumptions and constraints.

Why Should My Team Create a Project Charter?

Well, for two really good reasons…
1. If done well, the content of the completed charter document is a valuable tool for communicating about the project to anyone new to the team, or anyone who suddenly finds themselves more than superficially interested in your project. Very often, senior leaders fall into this category

2. The real value of a project charter (IMHO) is found in the process of creating the document. If done conscientiously, the chartering process will drive the team to consult closely with the project champion and/or customers to ensure common understanding of the why, what, how, when and who of the project.

If you’re anything like the hundreds of people I’ve taught or coached through six sigma projects, you look at creating the project charter as a fill-in-the-blanks exercise that you can do by yourself in an hour so that you can quickly move on to the “real” work. Taking that approach my friend, would be a critical mistake.

Try thinking of your project charter this way.

Someone has the original idea for a project. I.e., they have gathered much information and synthesized many factors. They have an idea that makes perfect sense to them – so much sense that they champion the creation of a team, and support the allocation of resources to it. Somehow this project lands in your lap. It makes sense to you, at least the way you understand it. Now, what do you suppose the probability is that your understanding of the project and the originators idea of the project are the same? Based on my experience with many dozens of projects, I’d say that probability is very small.  That’s why we go throught the chartering process!

Many organizations will go through the trouble of creating a PowerPoint template that must be filled in – as if the purpose of the charter is to pitch! I recommend using a simple text document. It will be much easier to edit, email, paste into other formats, etc. should you need to.

I suggest using plain English headings/section titles that read in a logical fashion. Remember, you already know what this project is about. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who is reading this for the first time because they’ve got to come up-to-speed on your project in a hurry.

Suggested Headings:

Here’s what our project is about…
Here’s why it’s important to do…
Here’s what we want to achieve (The Vision)
Here’s what we expect of our team member
How will we accomplish this? (Objectives)
Who are the Customers for this project and what are their requirements?
Critical success factors
How will we measure success?
What is the current plan?

Try this approach to a Project Charter and see if you don’t find it easier to create as well as more useful for your project team.

Leading vs. Managing – The pendulum swings

For many years we’ve been hearing from the HBR crowd that organizations have been overmanaged and underled. I was totally bought into this, and still support Emotional Intelligence and similar practices for leaders.  But recently it has occurred to me that we might really be overled and undermanaged.

When an individual contributor moves into a management role, they take on new responsibilities in addition to their technical expertise.  They now must hire, give feedback and coach, conduct performance reviews, delegate, make decisions for the group, etc.  These are basic skills/responsibilities required of every manager.  My observation is that most managers are failing at these fundamental tasks.

Senior leadership requires monthly/quarterly financial updates, and the entire organization dutifully complies – we would expect nothing less.   If “our people are our greatest resource” as so many claim, why do organizations live with one poorly done performance review per year?   Why don’t we expect monthly, or at least quarterly, people reviews?  Why do we allow the hiring/interview process to be so poorly managed?  Why don’t we do more post-mortems on decisions and delegations.

Furthermore, to what degree does HR, as a profession, enable this?  The HR community (of which I am a part) is always talking about “having a seat at the table” with the c-suite, to be part of the strategy-making process.   I realize that most HR departments are stretched to the breaking point these days, but how about we get the focus back on the fundamentals and get managers managing again.  How about we insist that we abandon the annual performance review process and move to a meaningful quarterly process and tie manager compensation to it being done well.  What might that be worth to an organization?

It’s time we swing the pendulum back the other way and get back to fundamentals – We need really good managers now.  Once they’ve proven their ability to manage well, we can think about their ability to inspire or whatever…

Change Management and the Healthcare Debate

There are great lessons for every leader in the ongoing healthcare debate regarding the handling of strategic change initiatives that your political slant has no bearing on.    Leaders, whether Obama or you, must keep in mind that humans are genetically “hardwired” for certain behavior.  Three such hardwired behaviors are on vivid display in the healthcare hysterics:

1.  Humans are hardwired to be “Loss Averse.”  This has been demonstrated in countless university psych classes.   True to form, we see people far more concerned about what they might lose, rather than what they might gain as an individual, family, community or society.    Leaders must remember that employees will not ask, “what’s in it for me?” they will instinctively ask, “what might I lose?”  and they must be prepared to address this concern

2. Humans are hardwired to trust “Emotional instincts before reason.”  How else can you explain the currency that the patently absurd “death panel” story gained?  Leaders must plan to plant a positive emotional connection to any change initiative.  If inaction/lack of communication allows fear to take hold, there will be an uphill battle to gain the hearts/minds.

3. Humans are hardwired to seek and share information in order to build alliances (a.k.a. Gossip).   No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot shut down the “rumor mill.”   What stories will be told at the water cooler or over lunch?   Will they be the stories you want to be told?  

For more details on hardwired behavior, read, “How Hardwired is Human Behavior?” by Nigel Nicholson in July 1998 Harvard Business Review.

Elearning Cultural Adoption Factors

This posting is a summary of a discussion I facilitated with the Metro Milwaukee Society for Human Resource Management Performance & Development committee during their July ’09 meeting.

I was in a discussion recently with several corporate learning professionals and some Gen. Y folks.

We were discussing the application of Web 2.0 tools for learning, specifically the integration of Wiki’s as a post-training tool that learners could use as reference and best practice sharing sites.  The L&D pro’s were adamant, “We couldn’t allow that!  How could we control the accuracy of the information being shared?”  One of the younger folks replied, “You guys have been sharing bogus information at the water cooler and the lunch room for years, why does it bother you now?  At least this way you can see what we’re sharing!” 

 

We were stunned by the obvious logic and the clarity of the point.  As I reflected on this exchange over the next few weeks, it dawned on me that the ground has shifted under the Training & Development department!  In the last few years, driven by the wide-spread adoption of Web 2.0 technologies, the factors that can impact the success/failure of an elearning deployment have changed radically from what they’ve been historically. 

A brief survey of Technology-Enabled Learning / Elearning history

• Gen. 1 – Laserdisc; specialized delivery systems(mid-80’s)
• Gen. 2 – CD-ROM; desktop PC delivery (1990’s)
• Gen. 3 – Intranet-based; Workplace or home PC delivery/Learning Management Systems (LMS) (2000’s)
• Gen. 4 – Internet-based, Web 2.0 (e.g., Wiki, YouTube, Podcast, Simulations, Twitter);  PDA/Smartphone delivery/Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS)

Summary of Current Trends:

• Unprecedented cost pressure on business (travel & training impact)
• Training design shifting from discrete events to distributed-over-time
• Control shifting from Training Dept. to Learner
• Cost of technology-enabled training production & deployment dropping
• Complexity of learning content management increasing
• Workplace generational gaps/differences with technology widening

Cultural adoption issues for Gen. 1 thru Gen. 3

For the first three generations of technology-enabled training, it was the training department on the cutting-edge of technology.  Their job included not only the development and deployment of elearning content, but staying abreast of the developments in elearning technology, and the marketing of the technology to their client population as well.   During roll-out of an enterprise-wide elearning application at GE, as recently as 4-5 years ago, these were the typical cultural adoption issues:

• Inconsistent navigation features from e-course to e-course – None have the comfort of a “book metaphor” (i.e., Table of Contents, Chapters, Index, Visual search, Mark pages with tabs, write in margins/ highlight, etc.).
• Learner comfort/preference for face-to-face social interaction and value of spontaneous interaction found in a classroom vs. the solo elearning experience
• Shift from listening/verbal skills/social skills needed in a classroom to reading/writing/technology skills needed for elearning
• Classroom/off-site training frequently seen as a perquisite – elearning seen as a task
• Overcoming user frustration with technology glitches and lack of computer  fluency/skills
• Good time management skills and discipline managing distractions (e.g., Phone, email, drop-ins, boss) required for elearning.   Additionally the psychological benefit of changing venue (going to classroom) for training, helping to refocus attention to learning.

Actual learner feedback; “When I go to a classroom event I make training my A priority and I keep up with my day job before class, during lunch/breaks, after class.  When I’m at my desk, my day job is my A priority and elearning is a C priority – I rarely make the time for it”

Cultural adoption issues for Gen. 4

The wide-spread adoption of Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikis, blogs, social media, YouTube, simulations, smartphones, etc., predominantly by younger (Gen. Y) workers has created a larger “technology gap” for many of the boomers in the workforce who still have the Gen. 1-3 issues described above.   Now we add in a whole new dynamic, the Gen Y folks who bring:

• Comfort with/preference for Web 2.0/social technologies and elearning rather than face-to-face social interaction
• Expectations of highly-sophisticated technology experience (i.e. intuitive user interface & fast, glitch-free technology)
• Different production values on-line content (e.g., cell phone video posted on YouTube is fine as long as it meets acceptable audio/video quality) as opposed to the emphasis on “glitzy” production that is still preferred for Gen. 1-3 elearning to support the internal marketing of it.
• Widespread adoption of smartphone/PDA technology seamlessly integrated with on-line applications, and expectations of truly anywhere/anytime learning. 

 

I will continue this discussion in another post soon.  I’d love to hear your comments!