Leading at Light Speed by Eric Douglas » Change Management

The “Hostile Media Effect” – A Lesson in Group Dynamics

admin — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:45:15 +0000

David Pogue, the New York Times columnist, writes in Scientific American this month about the “hostile media effect.” This is a cognitive phenomenon where people who hold strong opinions about something perceive that media coverage of that topic is prejudiced, no matter how neutral the coverage actually is.

The same phenomenon happens in groups. People who hold strong opinions about something perceive that anyone who asks questions is biased against them, regardless of how neutral or innocent the questions are.

I saw it in action this week during a meeting of the executive team of a health care company. Ten people gathered in a large conference room overlooking San Francisco to discuss the strategic issues faced by the organization. I asked each person to reflect on these questions: “How is the health care environment changing in California? What are the most important opportunities for the company? What should be our priorities over the next year?”

For the most part, the ensuring conversation was excellent. One team member talked about the “triple transformation:” the realignment of state government, health care reform, and the emergence of community care organizations. Another said she was worried about trends in work force development and the growing need for people with expertise in integrated care. Yet another talked about the importance of marketing services to public agencies.

Then Michelle spoke. She was vice president of marketing, new to the management team. She started by saying: “In my old job, this would be called channel management.” Eyes turned to her. “In a dynamic environment, we need to look at each customer segment and provide a unique value proposition.“

A team member asked: “Can you give us some specific examples?”

“You’re missing my point,” Michelle said. “We need to think more like a business.”

“In what ways?” said the team member.

“We need to be more business-like with our customers. We assume our customers will be there tomorrow, when that’s not necessarily true.”

There was an awkward silence. I could feel the tension ratcheting up in the room. “Which customers are you referring to?” she was asked.

“All of them,” Michelle said. “It should be obvious.” She stared defiantly at her inquisitor.

After the meeting, the CEO asked for my impressions. “I thought it was a good, productive discussion,” I replied. “With one exception.”

“Are you referring to Michelle?” he asked. “That was classic. There should be a name for what she did.”

“There already is,” I replied. “It’s called the hostile media effect. She’s highly opinionated and perceives innocent questions as hostile to her.”

“Is it curable?”

“Only in cases where you can get them to eat a large piece of humble pie!”

Learn the habits of high performing organizations in my new book: http://leadingatlightspeed.com.

Managing Decisions in a Light Speed World

admin — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 15:30:40 +0000

In a world where change is accelerating, where new products and services are developed in ever-faster cycles, the quality of decisions is ultimately the most important test of leadership. Ironically, many managers and leaders are still working with Old World decision-making skills, even while their companies are trying to succeed in a Light Speed world.

A critical skill that leaders must learn in a Light Speed world is how to juggle and manage complex decision processes. As I describe in my latest book, “Leading at Light Speed,” there are five – and only five – types of decisions: autocratic, consultative, consensus, delegated, and democratic.

To be effective in a Light Speed world, more decisions have to be made “consultatively.” In a consultative decision, one person or one group ultimately makes the decision – because it’s their responsibility to do so. In a consultative decision, the leader engages people up front, clarifies that it’s her role to ultimately make the decision, and then gains people’s input. She makes it clear that she is open to different ideas – and she actively creates opportunities for people to speak up. But there’s no expectation that consensus will be reached; instead, people are encouraged to make their case, listen to other arguments, and then listen and answer questions as the leader comes to a conclusion.

There are three keys to success in a consultative decision: First, the leader needs to say up front how the decision process will go and who will make the final call. Roles and responsibilities at each step need to be mapped out. Second, there must be regular updates to remind people when they’ll have opportunities to contribute. Third, it’s key to record the ideas and feedback so that people know their views were heard.

The advantages are obvious: Instead of everyone needing to agree before a decision is made, a consultative decision can flow smoothly to a conclusion. Because people can speak their minds, unfettered by the need to agree with everyone else, unconventional thinking has a better chance to be heard.

Contrast this to a consensus decision. When using consensus, everyone must agree – a much more difficult and time-consuming process. And to what end? Some would say the end is greater “ownership” in the decision. But our experience working with hundreds of different organizations is that people actually lose trust in consensus decisions for several reasons. First, people may have stifled their feelings in order to reach agreement, resulting in a “faux” consensus. Second, people may feel that they had to water down the quality of the decision in the urge to reach consensus. Finally, when people perceive their leaders failing to take responsibility to make decisions, they lose confidence and trust. What’s the point of leadership, they ask, if the people in charge don’t actually manage and make decisions?

Last week, I worked with the executive team from a large organization to help them learn how to manage decisions more effectively. The CEO turned to me afterward and said: “I realize now why we have so many problems with decision making in our company: We aren’t clear at all about how we are going to make a decision. So people simply assume it’s going to be consensus, or assume that the team asked to develop some recommendations is going to make the final call. This has been a huge eye-opener for me!”

A Good Consultant Always Tells The Truth

admin — Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:30:43 +0000

One of the axioms of being a good consultant is this: Always tell the truth to your clients! Now this may seem like a no-brainer, but every one of us has experienced moments where we’ve wanted to refrain from telling the truth out of fear that we’ll offend. For a professional management consultant, telling the truth carries the additional fear of losing a client, with all of the financial consequences that entails.

I was reminded of this axiom while working with a large non-profit based in Los Angeles. I was hired to help the board of directors get clear on its governance role. The CEO felt the board was asserting too much control. But as I dug deeper, I found that the board had every reason to be concerned. There was no clear vision, no clear strategy, and the only action plans were on paper – no one truly owned them.

I met with the CEO and told him that my goal, above all else, was to help him and his organization be successful. I told him that, frankly, I felt the organization lacked direction. The strategic planning that the Board had done in 2007 had not resulted in a clear strategic plan. Nothing had not been captured on paper. The management team was off on its own, with no sense of coordinated action or accountability. Frankly, I told him, we needed to start at the beginning. I then looked at him, not sure what to expect.

“You’re absolutely right,” he said. “And I need you to say that to the Board – not once, but many times.”

I raised an eyebrow. After all, he was responsible for the lack of a plan, for the lack of coordination.

“You say that to the Board, and then help us develop a plan,” he said. “That will assure them that we’re on the right track.”

“I can’t do that,” I explained. “You have to carry that message. I can support you, but the Board needs to hear your commitment to making that happen.”

He paused, and then smiled. “No, you’re right again. I’ll let them know that we could have done better. And then I’d like to turn it over to you to facilitate a discussion with them. Can you do that?”

“I would be happy to,” I said. And that was the truth.

Strategic Change Management

admin — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:21:28 +0000

To paraphrase Kenny Rogers, as a change manager, you have to know when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em.

Our firm worked with a large coalition in California, helping it develop a strategic plan and a new governance structure. The strategic change management process we initially designed called for multiple meetings with coalition members to clarify the goals of the coalition — and then look at options for a new governance structure. It was a solid process, grounded in our 12 years of doing similar work.

The key funder for this coalition was a large California-based foundation. When we began work, the woman assigned to manage the coalition told us to scale the process down in order to meet her timetable. That was the first warning sign. After the first stakeholder meeting, she heavily edited our synopsis to spin it in a way she felt would play better to coalition members. That was another sign of trouble.

As we were designing the next stakeholders meeting, she told us to shrink the timeline even further. It was gut check time. I called some people. Their stories resonated: the coalition manager treated people with disrespect; she pushed her agenda at the expense of collaborating with others. Feeling that our firm’s reputation was on the line, I told her of my concerns about the quality of the process. She replied with a blistering email, criticizing me and criticizing our staff.

I tried to imagine whether our firm could successfully partner with her. Looking at the evidence, I realized it was highly unlikely that the process could ever be as robust as it needed to be. At that point, I decided the best strategic change was to end the engagement. I communicated that to her in an email. The next day, I got a voicemail from her, asking if we could talk. Perhaps we needed to clear the air, she said.

I told her the decision was final. It was unfortunate. But a good change management process needs to be anchored in a strong, trusting partnership between the consulting firm and the client.

Related Blogs

Strategic Change Management and the First Five Percent

admin — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:27:53 +0000

I have written before about the “First Five Percent.” That’s my approach to strategic change management that says the quality of the first five percent determines what happens in the rest of the process.

I was in Los Angeles last week, working with a large association, on a strategic plan for their organization. It was the beginning of a year-long process to create a high-performing organization.

One of the rules of the First Five Percent is to engage as many people as possible early on. You never know who has the good ideas. The more people you engage early on, the quicker you can identify the best thinking and the hidden resources.

There were 300 people in the room, including board members, chapter leaders, and local officers. The agenda was flexible. Depending on how the first exercise went, I was prepared to go in different directions to assure high levels of participation.

The first question I posed was this: “Think about where you want the association to be in two years. Tell me the specific changes you want to see and your measures of success.” They worked on this question for 60 minutes and wrote down their responses on flip chart paper.

Each group then reported out. I then asked them: “What did you hear yourselves say? What did you agree on?” Everyone called out what they heard. “Increase membership.” “Fill our vacancies.” “Create a new business line.” Their juices were flowing. “How would you measure success?” I asked. They shouted out what they’d heard. I listed four specific measures of success. I asked if they all agreed. Everyone raised their hands. They took a quick break for lunch.

While the room was quiet, I thought about my next move. I looked over all of their reports, and decided I should simply tap into their energy. I listed 12 goals on flip chart paper. Each goal came from them, like “Double our membership” or “Increase our political clout.” I posted these goals on the walls of the room.

When they came back from lunch, I said: “Take a look around the room. These are your goals. Find a goal you feel passionate about. Go stand by that goal. For those of you who are passionate about some other goal, there are blank pieces of paper.”

The group divided itself into teams around each goal. I asked them to develop an action plan for each goal and then report out. During the report-outs, I identified key issues that needed to be resolved and facilitated a discussion around each issue. When people drifted off topic, I invoked the two-minute rule (”Anything important can be said in two minutes”) and they got back on course.

We wrapped it up at 4 p.m. I asked people to tell me what they liked about the meeting. “It was energizing,” someone said. “Great ideas!” several people said. “Your guidance,” someone said. “The two minute rule!” several shouted. “We’re excited to be building our organization,” a woman said. “And what would you like to change?” I asked.

“That we have to leave!” a man shouted. Everyone laughed.

Next blog article: “Our Change Management Model“

Related Blogs

Three Principles of Our Change Management Model

admin — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:22:48 +0000

When people ask me to describe our change management model at LRI, I tell them it boils down to three principles.

Principle number one: focus on the first five percent. What you do to gather champions, set expectations, how extensively you engage stakeholders, and how well you paint a picture for people of the decision-making process will go a long way toward guaranteeing a successful outcome. Let me emphasize the importance of engaging many people early on – those who will be affected by the decision and those whose expertise can help. Even when ideological stances are strong, early engagement is always the better approach (as opposed to shutting people out of the process).

Principle number two: Focus on defining the root problem. Solutions don’t matter unless you define the problem correctly. We emphasize a systems approach. Too often people say things like: “We need better products,” or “we need more sales, or “staff isn’t working hard enough,” without looking at the reasons why. Very often, the answer lies in looking in the mirror – at what you’re doing or not doing. One systems approach is to look at the organization’s core values – the things essential for its success. You can make tough decisions look easy if you ground them in well-understood core values.

Principle number three: Find a good guide. An experienced guide can set the tone, keep an open mind, identify key issues, articulate points of agreement, and keep things moving. A guide should be able to offer models and examples from other organizations. The courage to handle uncertainty and adversity is also important, along with a healthy sense of humor. Good, experienced guides are hard to find. But they are absolutely essential to our change management model.

Next blog article: “Strategic Change Management“

Related Blogs

Peter Drucker Management | What Would Drucker Do?

admin — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 21:07:17 +0000

In 1957, Peter Drucker first used the expression “postmodern organization” to describe a new kind of fluid, organic, flexible company. In a book titled, Landmarks of Tomorrow, Drucker wrote that the shift from the universe of mechanical cause and effect to a new universe of pattern, purpose, and process would permanently transform how leaders view themselves and their jobs.

Drucker was right. The world did become more complex. Our global markets became so complex that a single action can send tremors through the world’s financial markets. We are inter-connected in ways never before seen.

So I found myself asking the last few days: “What would Peter Drucker have done?” How would he react to Wall Street’s meltdown? One thing I know for sure, he would have disapproved of the bailout. It pushes more money into the wrong places – into the hands of bankers. He would have looked to fix the problem at its source.

And where’s the source? The commercial paper that enables corporations to do business is tied to the money markets. When it froze up, when the value of a money market share “broke the buck,” that’s when the panic began.

I believe that Peter Drucker would have looked to the money markets to fix the problem. He would have insured it against “breaking the buck.” That would enable the commercial paper to flow freely again and the panic would end.

Yes, it’s a far different world from 1957. But if Peter Drucker were alive, the conversation would be different. Peter Drucker would have said: “Resist the stampede to the simple, quick fix. Work for the long term systemic solution.”

Related executive management blog post: “Executive Leadership Coaching” Learn the characteristic traits of a successful leader coach.

Managing Change: The CEO’s Change Strategy

admin — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:31:34 +0000

A CEO of a high-tech company told me today his story of managing change. The company has doubled in size over the past three years. Alex decided to split the company into two business units, headed by two new senor vice presidents. From a structural perspective, it made sense.

Rather than promote from within, however, he brought in two people from the outside whom he felt would change the company’s culture. He wanted more discipline and management expertise, he told me. The problem is that the people who used to report to Alex are chafing. They don’t feel respected for the work they’ve done. They miss the direct access and the open culture. They feel the new structure isn’t working.

“What can I do?” Alex asked me.

First, I said, think about managing change. That’s your role. How are you communicating why the new structure is important and the value it will have for the company? What are you doing to make sure everyone understands?

“I know I’m not doing enough,” he said.

I also talked about his leadership style. “In the old structure, you were comfortable directing people and telling them what to do.” That won’t work in this new structure, I told him.

He listened as I went on. “You’re the one who has to change. Otherwise, you’ll undercut your new senior vice presidents. You’ve got to be their coach. As a coach, you can’t tell them what to do. You have to ask them good questions, and get them to assume responsibility for making the change work successfully.”

He thought about it for a while, asked a few questions, and then said: “It makes a lot of sense. How could you help us?”

“I could help the three of you develop a game plan for managing change. I think that would have enormous impact.”

“Great!” he said. “When can we start?”

Related blog: “Change Management Model“