td at work - change in government forum

23THE PUBLIC MANAGER | SPRING 2015

FORUM: DRIVING MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT

Mastering Change ManagementBy Walter McFarland

Illustration by Fatimah Weller

About the ForumLearn how government

leaders can execute orga-nizational change better,

faster, and with fewer resources. Organizations everywhere are struggling with an environment of nearly continuous

change. This is particularly true in the federal government, where new and expanding missions, increased numbers of stakeholders, and severe resource constraints are forcing agencies—and employees—to be more creative, flexible, and adaptable than ever before.

The ability to manage organizational change has never been more important. Unfortu-nately, as several of the authors point out in this Forum, this ability remains elusive. To help government leaders with this challenge, each Forum article examines how to better execute organizational change in the federal government from several important perspectives.

Dan G. Blair sets the stage for the discussion in his article, “Change in the Fed-eral Government Is Coming—Are You Prepared?” Drawing on his government-wide perspective as CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), Blair highlights two competing factors that are complicating organizational change in the federal government: “mission creep” and scarce resources.

He notes that good faith efforts by federal agencies to accommodate new missions with decreasing resources are not sustainable in the long term. He suggests that a critical step in managing change is to initiate better government-wide planning that is able to continuously clarify mission priorities.

© ATD 2015

WWW.THEPUBLICMANAGER.ORG24

FORUM:

Allyson B. Coleman and Kate Garvey shift the dis-cussion to a focus on improving the organizational change process. Their article, “Transformational Change Takes Time and Effort,” proposes that real transformation in the public sector requires focused attention on “three criti-cal levers of change—human capital, infrastructure, and culture.” They note the importance of integrating change efforts across all three levers, and of making fast progress so people can see—and believe—that real change is underway.

Patrina M. Clark continues to focus on the change process by asserting that great performance manage-ment is a key component of effective organizational change. In her article, “Bringing Meaningful Change in Performance Management,” Clark notes that current performance management processes in the federal gov-ernment are ineffective in advancing individual and mis-sion performance, and advocates new ways to think about performance management. She also suggests that great performance management is an important factor in creat-ing change readiness.

Peter R. Garber makes organizational change more relevant to the individual federal employee in his article, “Understand Change—Position Yourself to Win.” He writes that a big problem with organizational change in the federal government is that the people most affected by it (and most needed for its success) don’t understand the reasons for change—and hence, they never fully engage in making the effort successful.

Garber contends that information about organiza-tional change is critical and that federal employees should become more proactive in obtaining this information. He offers “six ways to stay ahead of the information curve.”

Meanwhile, Robert M. Tobias discusses the role of leadership in organizational change in his article, “Why Do So Many Organizational Change Efforts Fail?” He asserts that poor leadership is a key reason why federal change efforts under-perform and that managing change better means leading change better.

According to Tobias, great change leadership is more than being persuasive or finding the right words to create urgency. Instead, great change leadership begins with the ability of the leader to personally change. Organizational change leaders who are able to change their own behavior for the sake of their agencies and teams are more than just authentic; these leaders are inspirational.

Building on the themes of leadership and learning, I suggest in my article, “Talent-Enabled Change Leaders,”

that great change leaders are great talent developers. Talent-enabled change leaders use the opportunity of change to accelerate the development of their teams and build talent capacity for their agencies.

Further, the ability of these change leaders to “reframe” change efforts as opportunities for personal development is a key element in performing change across the federal government. Simply said, managing change better is about developing people better.

Two ideas about managing change in the federal government are present across these articles. First, man-aging change in an organization as large and dynamic as the federal government is incredibly complex. Second, managing change well is a great opportunity to develop the federal workforce, increase engagement, and improve mission effectiveness.

Federal agencies of the future must be able to do more than manage change; they must be able to use change as fuel for performance improvement.

Walter McFarland is the founder of Windmill Human Performance and a former senior vice president at Booz|Allen|Hamilton in the areas of learning, HR, and change. His clients include Fortune Global 500 organizations, international organizations, government agencies, and not-for-profit organizations. McFarland was the 2013 Board Chair of the American Society of Training & Development (ASTD), and was a member of President Obama’s 2012 and 2013 Rank Award Council. He is the co-author of Choosing Change from McGraw-Hill; the “Neuroscience of Motivation” chapter in the Handbook of NeuroLeadership (2013); and the “Neuroscience of Learning” chapter in the ASTD Handbook (2014). He can be reached at [email protected].

© ATD 2015


DRIVING MEANINGFUL CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT

Change in the Federal Government Is Coming—Are You Prepared?

By Dan G. Blair

The public administration community faces one certainty—the status quo will change, and change dramatically. What govern-ment does today, and how it does it, will look far different a decade from now.

Here’s how two federal agencies—the United States Postal Service and the Social Security Admin-istration (SSA)—are grappling with a rapidly changing environment.

Assessing ChangeDuring my federal public service experience, I have had the opportunity to witness how government, at all levels, has evolved over the past three decades. As president and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy), I have the unique opportunity to work with government and its leaders to increase their effi-ciency and effectiveness.

As an independent organization, the Academy pro-vides objective analysis on areas where agencies could improve and identifies the steps needed to realize those improvements. This past November, the Academy hosted its annual meeting, and the theme for the three-day sym-posium was “Public Administration 2025: How Will Government Adapt?”

Nationally recognized thought leaders presented on the challenges facing government over the next decade and suggested strategies for responding to this environ-ment. One federal leader acknowledged that many federal agencies have found themselves playing catch-up when it comes to adapting to changes. Over the next decade, these agencies must determine exactly what type of catch up is needed.

The Impact of Scarce Resources on AdaptabilityFederal, state, and local governments were affected dra-matically by the economic downturn that began in 2008.

Their responses, while varied, demonstrated that govern-ments must be prepared to address periods of extreme resource shortages coupled with increased demand for government services. How can they successfully adapt to a changing environment when resources are constricted and public demands are changing?

The Academy recently had the opportunity to help two federal agencies that touch every American’s life on a regular basis: the Postal Service and SSA. Our engage-ments with these organizations demonstrate that agen-cies are struggling to adapt successfully.

Our first case study examines a proposal by recog-nized leaders in the postal community to adopt a hybrid public-private partnership to handle postal operations and address financial issues. The Postal Reorganiza-tion Act of 1970 requires the Postal Service to cover its operating costs through stamp rates. However, postal revenues have not been sufficient to cover the agency’s operating costs.

Under a hybrid model, the Postal Service would be responsible for the final mile of delivery while the private sector would be responsible for transportation, process-ing, and collection of mail. The idea is that the Postal Service’s costs could be significantly reduced.

The Academy’s panel concluded that the hybrid model was worth considering, especially given the acute financial challenges facing the Postal Service, but noted that additional study would be required in areas related to operational integration, organizational transition, technology, financial impacts, and oversight roles.

Mission Creep?As agencies struggle financially, staying true to their mis-sion must be balanced against the need to be financially viable. In FY 2013, the Postal Service reported its seventh consecutive year of financial loss, amassing a total net deficit of $46.2 billion since FY 2007. To help defray the costs associated with the universal mail service obligation,

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

the Postal Service Office of Inspector General (OIG) has proposed that the Postal Service consider providing non-bank financial services to the public. The OIG suggests that providing non-bank financial services to underserved members of the public could increase the annual revenue of the Postal Service by $8.9 billion.

While the Postal Service is already authorized to provide non-bank financial services such as money orders and international money transfers, the OIG recommends expanding services to include mobile transactions and reloadable prepaid cards to customers. Technical and logistical issues, as well as significant statutory changes, would need to be addressed to successfully implement these expanded services.

Also, does the obligation to provide universal mail service justify moving into areas served by the private sec-tor? Could the Postal Service generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of providing these services? What are the risks involved?

The OIG notes that the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act of 2006 “generally prohibits the Postal Service from offering new non-postal services.” So Con-gress would need to grant the Postal Service the legisla-tive authority to offer such services.

Long-Term Strategic PlanningOne tool agencies can use is long-term strategic plan-ning. The current Government Performance and Results Act framework provides for a five-year “chip shot” of future planning.

It is time for the federal government to give priority to disciplined long-range strategic planning. We need to actively steer the future into the present by focusing at least a decade ahead, if not two.

There are important precedents for agencies to build on. The nation’s defense and intelligence agencies, for example, have been doing high-quality long-range strate-gic planning for decades. Also, a few civilian agencies—including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Veterans Affairs—have begun to embrace the importance of systematic long-range plan-ning. The Academy learned about these efforts when assisting the SSA with high-level strategic planning.

Congress directed the Academy’s work with the SSA to develop a vision and plan for 2025 to 2030. The Academy’s panel concluded that the SSA should increase its use of virtual channels (for example, online, phone,

videoconference) in providing quality service, while con-tinuing to provide personal service delivery options as necessary and appropriate; design user-friendly service delivery channels that become customers’ choice for con-ducting most transactions; and become more nimble by improving data access, developing a more agile work-force, and expanding the use of shared support services to enable more rapid responses to changing customer needs.

To achieve a successful transformation, SSA lead-ership must sustain a long-term strategic focus. More information on the vision and strategy of the SSA can be found online at http://www.napawash.org/images/reports/2014/2014_AnticipatingTheFutureSSA.pdf.

Changes Needed—Present and FutureTo successfully adapt to change, the federal government will need to be proactive yet careful in its efforts. These case studies illustrate the challenge that government faces to continue to provide quality service in times of scarce resources, balanced against its need to meet societal needs and stay true to core missions.

To facilitate these processes and establish effective long-term planning mechanisms, the federal government may need an integrated, government-wide effort. Once a vision and plan has been established, agencies’ leadership will need to drive transformation efforts and clearly communicate what changes will be required.

The world is changing rapidly and profoundly, threatening the federal government’s ability to perform important public missions in the future. It is critical that agencies undertake the long-range planning needed to identify and implement complex changes in time to meet the demands of the future.

Dan G. Blair is the president and CEO of the National Academy of Public Administration, an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization chartered by the United States Congress to assist government leaders in establishing more efficient, effective, accountable, and transparent organizations. He brings more than 26 years of federal public service to the Academy. He can be reached at [email protected].

Special acknowledgement for assistance in preparing this article goes to Eric Christensen, Academy research associate.

© ATD 2015



Transformational Change Takes Time and Effort

By Kate Garvey and Allyson B. Coleman

In every public sector setting where I have worked, there has been a drive for change. Higher quality, better outcomes, more responsiveness, improved transparency, greater community engagement, stronger accountability—the list goes on.

However, change is difficult, particularly for staff who have lived through many change management initia-tives and are continually “ just trying to do their work.” The pressure to perform and produce results in an envi-ronment of increasing needs and decreasing resources has placed public organizations in what some would describe as an untenable position.

Achieving Real Transformation in the Public SectorIn February 2014, I was given the opportunity to come into a public organization that has significant strengths—a committed and skilled workforce, a sup-portive community, and a history of delivering high-quality services. Prior to my arrival, major changes had affected the organization. Three departments with dis-tinct organizational structures, practices, cultures, and views about each other had merged; yet the integration was not seamless.

The organization had done a tremendous amount of work to unite the three departments, and to main-tain morale in the process. Training sessions, surveys, focus groups, town hall meetings, and other mechanisms yielded a treasure trove of information about staff ’s per-ception of the change, their morale, the organization itself, and the need to address many critical issues. It is not unusual for such shifts to bring long-standing orga-nizational challenges to the forefront.

We felt that we had a wonderful opportunity to learn from the information that had been gathered and to explore how we would move forward collectively. What we found was similar to what has proven true in other organizations: Transformation is only possible when you

attend to three critical levers of change—human capital, infrastructure, and culture.

Human CapitalIt was clear from the gathered information and staff feed-back that many were eager to help lead the organizational change. Both new and long-term staff could clearly see what actions they needed to take to propel the organiza-tion forward. In fact, a model did exist in the organiza-tion where representatives from across the department came together to address issues and solve problems.

The Change Agent Team (CAT), a group that was formed organically by managers and supervisors, had initially focused on implementing best practices in one segment of the organization. After the merger, the group reassessed its purpose and mission and decided to become more actively engaged in facilitating the integration of the organization. CAT defines itself as a community of practice that promotes the ability to lead and manage continuous change at all levels of the organization.

Some of the activities of CAT include: • modeling a culture of learning and organizational development

• communicating and collaborating across the organization

• exchanging ideas and perspectives to anticipate the impact of changes

• supporting each other in making process, structural, and cultural changes

• communicating with leadership about trends, pat-terns, gaps, barriers, and recommendations related to change initiatives

• increasing knowledge, skills, and abilities to effec-tively engage in the change process.

While this mechanism existed and met the needs of those who participated in the group, many others in the

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

organization had limited opportunities to engage in simi-lar kinds of dialogue or to offer their perspective regarding the future of the organization. As is often the case, staff who are working directly with clients are unable to par-ticipate in committees and discussion groups. Pressures

related to productivity, compliance, and large caseloads limit the access to groups like the CAT.

In addition, conversations held with staff throughout the organization (called Civility Brown Bags) revealed that staff felt their viewpoints were discounted because of the position they held in the organization. Hierarchical struc-tures were very strong and, whether real or perceived, many staff felt they could not get a place at the table where deci-sions were being made.

Efforts have been made to expand access to decision making in critical areas, including cultural competence approaches, budget, and the selection of manage-ment staff; using call-in features, surveys, and meeting directly with staff divisions. Work in this area continues to ensure that all staff are able to influence the future of the organization.

InfrastructureAs we talk about rising to a higher level of performance, managers frequently ask, “How can I focus on these things when I cannot get my personnel vacancies filled, the right technology in my staff ’s hands, or my vendors paid?” When basic tasks and technological needs go unmet, employees are less likely to focus on very chal-lenging issues or aspirational goals and may perceive organizational leadership as tone-deaf for not paying attention to the things that matter most to them in their roles.

Administrative teams (human resources, IT, finance) must be seen as partners dedicated to facili-tating the success of the rest of the organization.

Removing barriers, expediting processes, and offering innovative solutions should be the major work of these areas. Investment in this aspect of the organization is critical and must be seen as central to the success of the whole organization. Employees’ needs must be met to

enable them to approach change or growth in any meaningful way.

CultureThe culture of an organiza-tion is so fundamental to the satisfaction and perfor-mance of its members and to the quality of its services. This organization did con-

siderable work to hear from staff through various efforts. Surveys, focus groups, and town hall meetings produced data that revealed the organization had much more work to do to address cultural issues such as transparency, civility, cultural and linguistic competence, and mutual respect.

In an attempt to respond to these concerns, multiple strategies have been employed:

• Open Leadership Team Meetings. To respond to issues of transparency, the effectiveness of the leader-ship team, and a general sense of disconnection, one leadership team meeting each month is open for all staff to attend. Those in attendance are encouraged to comment on decisions made during the meeting, bring additional issues and questions forward to the group, or propose other items for discussion.

• Civility Brown Bags. A series of brown-bag sessions was held with staff throughout the organization. Those who participated were asked to discuss what civility looked like, what incivility looked like, and finally, what they would do to create a civil environ-ment. These sessions provided painful yet important information that will address issues of hierarchy, respect, favoritism, and communication.

• Cultural and Linguistic Competence Survey. The goal of the Cultural and Linguistic Competence Committee (CLCC) is to help the organization provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services to community members. This requires that our organization have a defined set of values and principles, and cultivate behaviors, attitudes,

Cultural competence is a critical component for delivering high-quality services, addressing disparities, and achieving equity and client-centered care. Attaining cultural competence in our organization benefits the public and those serving the public.

© ATD 2015



policies, and structures that enable employees to work cross –culturally both internally and exter-nally. To this end, a cultural competence survey to assess organizational strengths and challenges was administered. Analysis of survey results and subse-quent town halls indicate significant opportunities for continued development.

We have found that there is great variability in employees’ opinions on culture issues. We have been asked at times what civility and cultural competence have to do with the organization’s day-to-day functioning. Our response is “Everything.”

Cultural competence is a critical component for delivering high-quality services, addressing disparities, and achieving equity and client-centered care. Attaining cultural competence in our organization benefits the pub-lic and those serving the public.

In addition, cultural competence requires that orga-nizations and individuals value diversity, acquire and institutionalize cultural knowledge, adapt to diversity and the cultural contexts of the communities they serve, and incorporate the above in its policy making, adminis-tration, practice, and service delivery.

Are We There Yet?One of the most significant challenges when an organiza-tion is focused on transformation is demonstrating prog-ress quickly and thoroughly so that people continue to hope and believe that things can be different. In this case, we have been humbled to hear from some staff that they feel hopeful about the future.

We also have felt disappointment from others who feel change is taking too long and that there is no clear path to the future. Staying true to the three components of change and executing fully on them should lead us

collectively to real transformation. We are hopeful that it will come soon enough.

Kate Garvey is currently the director of the Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS) for the City of Alexandria. DCHS is a comprehensive, unified department, charged with addressing the critical needs of the most vulnerable in the city through the work of the Center for Adult Services, the Center for Children & Families, and the Center for Economic Support; along with Administrative Services and the Office of Strategic Initiatives and Communication. She can be reached at [email protected]. Allyson B. Coleman manages equity, diversity, and organization and employee development for the City of Alexandria’s Department of Community and Human Services (DCHS). She leads intercultural and leadership development, performance management, and change management efforts. Allyson chairs the DCHS Cultural and Linguistic Competence Committee (CLCC) and Adaptive Leadership Round Table (ALRT). She can be reached at [email protected].

Surveys, focus groups, and town hall meetings revealed that the organization had much more work to do to address issues with transparency, civility, cultural and linguistic competence, and mutual respect.

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

Bringing Meaningful Change to Performance Management

By Patrina M. Clark

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) defines performance manage-ment as “the systematic process by which an agency involves its employees, as individuals and members of a group, in

improving organizational effectiveness in the accomplish-ment of agency mission and goals.”

Yet the government’s systematic process arguably does very little to improve agency effectiveness. In fact, most would say that the process actually is a drain on essential resources that would be better used to accomplish more meaningful activities directly related to the mission.

In a 2013 survey of 300 government executives across nine countries, the consulting firm Accenture found that while there is widespread adoption of basic performance management techniques, most public supervisors use per-formance management primarily as a means of retrospec-tive review or accountability rather than in a strategic and dynamic way—for example, to plan, develop, and manage future organizational capability or to respond to perfor-mance issues before they become problems.

The question of how to make this process more mean-ingful, and to aspire to the definition put forward by OPM, remains mostly unanswered, despite government-wide ini-tiatives to improve the process.

OPM’s GEAR (an acronym for Goals, Engagement, Accountability, and Results) Framework initiative is illustrative of the challenges associated with undertaking large-scale change initiatives. The GEAR Framework was piloted in five agencies in 2011 and 2012, with the goal of transforming the performance management process.

Despite broad participation in this pilot, there does not seem to be much traction for expanding the initia-tive beyond these five agencies. Only two of the five fully implemented the framework. The architects and builders of such change initiatives are well intentioned, but the efforts often lose considerable momentum with the pas-sage of time and changes in leadership and priorities.

Here are three ideas for sustaining the mission to improve performance management.

Select and Retain the Right SupervisorsSupervisors are the bedrock of the performance man-agement process. Their attitudes and approaches greatly influence the attitudes and perceptions of those they supervise. While agencies may not be able to make sweeping changes to the process, they can enhance the performance management experience by ensuring that supervisors at every level of the organization are carry-ing out their roles and responsibilities in ways that foster motivation and commitment.

The federal government has a long-standing practice of promoting technical experts into supervisory positions without exploring these technicians’ true interest in and ability to effectively supervise others. However, a high-performing technician does not necessarily make a great supervisor. All the leadership training in the world cannot transform someone who does not want to be a leader into a leader. The correlation between employee engagement and the supervisor-employee relationship suggests that we should identify individuals who are truly passionate about—or at least genuinely interested in—leading people in the complex and challenging government environment.

Agencies should adopt a competency-based process for identifying federal supervisors and leaders. This pro-cess should:

• Be transparent about what it truly means to be a leader. Holding regular informal sessions is an excel-lent way to facilitate authentic conversations about the challenges and rewards of leading.

• Include behavioral assessment questions and activi-ties to assess actual leadership capability. Place the appropriate emphasis on the behaviors that matter most and take the time to thoughtfully develop an assessment process that drives better outcomes.

• Use diverse screening panels for a more holistic

© ATD 2015



assessment. At a minimum, panels should include customers and peers.

Involve Employees in Changing Organizational PerformanceA significant number of federal employees complete the annual engagement and climate survey (Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, or FEVS). With scores for overall commitment and engagement at a record low in 2014, most federal agencies have multiple initiatives underway to raise scores.

Almost all supervisors with whom I have worked expressed cynicism about these initiatives. It is not sur-prising then that only 38 percent of employees who responded to the FEVS believe that the results will be used to make their agencies better places to work.

Done right, agency-wide initiatives and town hall meetings are certainly worthwhile ways to engage employees. However, agencies that support their front-line supervisors in engaging their direct reports reap the rewards of both top-down and bottom-up efforts.

Agencies should ensure that results are shared at the lowest possible organizational level—including the com-ments. Supervisors should then be supported in carrying out the following activities:

• Analyze feedback constructively, looking for themes and trends.

• Engage all employees in a discussion about the results, being open and non-defensive. It may be helpful to include a facilitator in these discussions.

• Allow employees to prioritize areas for improve-ment—for example, focusing on the easy wins. Small victories are a great way to create momentum for larger victories and to build a sense of shared accountability.

• Empower employees to lead specific process improve-ment initiatives, and share progress with and solicit feedback from team members.

Make Small AdjustmentsWhile it may be very tempting to take on big change efforts, smaller efforts have a much greater likelihood of success—the only way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Here are a few bite-sized ideas to enhance outcomes:

• Create a goals matrix that clearly shows how per-formance goals cascade from the agency head all the way through the organization. The matrix can be a simple Excel spreadsheet, or integrated into

a web-based system. This allows employees to tie their performance to high-level goals and objectives while also uncovering weak or poorly described goals at every level.

• Give feedback more often than is required—monthly is best. While this may seem unreasonable to super-visors who are struggling to keep up with their other responsibilities, there is evidence that more frequent, informal feedback supports a much smoother end-of-year review by better managing expectations throughout the year.

• Praise often, authentically, and appropriately. Tailor praise to the needs of the individual employee and the reason for the praise. This requires that supervisors be aware of their own needs and expectations, as well as those of their employees. Personality assessments such as the Birkman Method, Myers-Briggs, and DiSC are invaluable for enhancing self-awareness. The federal government usually reserves these instruments for more senior leaders, but there is growing recognition that making these instruments available early in a leader’s career improves the leader’s effectiveness.

• Correct early and in the most constructive way possible. Allowing performance concerns to fester frustrates both the supervisor and the employee and makes it more challenging to change the per-formance. As mentioned earlier, the probationary period is an important retention tool. By correcting early, supervisors can help employees align their per-formance to expectations and more quickly identify employees who require more supervision or assis-tance transitioning to a better employment fit.

Margaret Meade said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Cultural transformation will be required to evolve the federal per-formance management process. And, it will likely occur one very courageous and competent supervisor at a time.

Patrina M. Clark is president and founder of Pivotal Practices Consulting, LLC, a management consulting firm in Washington, D.C. Clark has completed graduate studies and programs at Harvard, Cornell, Georgetown, George Washington University, and the University of Maryland. She serves as an adjunct faculty member at Georgetown University and consults with organizations on performance improvement. She can be reached at [email protected].

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

Understand Change—Position Yourself to Win

By Peter R. Garber

Those most affected by change often least understand why the change is happen-ing or who is behind the change initia-tive. This sad fact is one of the biggest obstacles to change. So the first thing

you must understand is who created the change. First, let’s assign some official character names and

roles for those involved in most organizational change scripts. Here are the three main players:

• Change Initiators—those responsible for identify-ing and acting on the need for change (management). These organizational actors initiate change, but are not necessarily the ones charged with implementing the change.

• Change Implementers—the real movers and shak-ers in the change initiative (managers, department heads) charged with making something happen on the ground.

• Change Intended—those who are most affected by change (workers, line employees).

What is intended by the change and what actually occurs can become two distinctly different things. Under-standing this disconnect between intention and outcome can help you navigate these treacherous waters.

Understanding the Change PlayersAll the change players—initiators, implementers, intended—are affected by change, but organizational structures prevent all players from experiencing the impact of change at the same time in the process. This timing difference may be seen by the intended, living at the bottom of the information food chain, as upper man-agement’s insensitivity to their feelings and concerns.

In reality, initiators are not insensitive to the intended group’s concerns. It’s just that the initiators already went through these emotions when they were directly involved in initiating the change process, and have now moved on

to other concerns. They don’t mean any harm or disre-spect, but they are already thinking of the next change.

Six Ways to Stay Ahead of the Information CurveUnderstanding organizational change requires not just knowing where the change originates and from whom; it also requires having the most accurate information. You should take at least the following steps and ask the right questions during any organizational change initiative.

Learn Everything You Can About the ChangeAsk questions. Read what is sent out about the changes.Carefully observe what is happening. Try to identify the initiators and implementers. The implementers are usually easy to spot, since they are likely telling you about the changes. The initiators may not be so obvious. They may be the bosses of the implementers, though not necessarily.

There also could be influencers, who may have a major impact on what ultimately happens in the organi-zation. They don’t necessarily have to be part of the orga-nization. Typical influencers may be customer groups, but can include economic conditions (foreign or domes-tic), or some world or national event, such as a terrorist attack or economic meltdown.

Once you have a better understanding of what’s driv-ing the change, you can better assess how it will affect you and your future.

Find Out What Is Really Behind the ChangeTalk to as many people as possible to gain their perspec-tive about the change. Find out what or who are the influencers driving the organizational changes. Listen carefully to everything said about the change. Again, this is particularly important during the earliest stages of an organizational change process.

© ATD 2015



Sometimes the rationale given for the change loses its true meaning because it is presented over and over or fil-tered for the public. You may find this information is the only true insight as to the real influencers and initiators of the change.

Listen to the Buzz About ReorganizationThe best thing to do, particularly in the earliest stages of the change, is to soak it all up. Pay attention to not only what is being said, but also to how it is being said. You can usually tell how people really feel about something by how they say things.

Listen for the buzz throughout the organization about how different people feel about the changes. This can be important signs of how these changes will be implemented and by whom. In this buzz, you can gain insights into the real influencers and initiators, which will ultimately help you deal most positively with the change.

Organizational change is much like a political pro-cess. There are factions, for example, struggling for power

and position as everything begins to realign. Some of these factions may have great influence on the eventual outcome of the changes. Listen carefully to what is talked about informally throughout the organization to learn what is driving these influencers.

Understand the Reorganization RationaleFind out what your organization ultimately expects to achieve with the change. Are there hidden agendas? Be aware that what is officially presented as the objectives and rationale for the change may represent only part of what management really hopes to achieve. This is where things get interesting.

Look for inconsistencies among the initiators of the changes. Listen also for things that just don’t make sense. You may hear very fuzzy reasons or hear some that even seem counterproductive for the change.

When you hear these, you should assume there is some other reason that is not being stated publicly. Take, for example, the official reason for a major change in a

12 Warning Signs of Change

Know how to recognize harbingers of organizational change. Whether the change spells good news or bad, it’ll be better if you’re prepared for it.

1. Problems are not immediately addressed. Issues that would normally be resolved promptly are left alone—perhaps because the change initia-tors have not yet decided how to deal with them in the new scheme of things.

2. Key decisions are postponed. Decisions are left hanging, for the same reason as above.

3. Positions are left unfilled. Organizational change often includes new assignments and reporting structures, so management may decide to leave positions unfilled until the change is made.

4. Decisions seem illogical. Because the change initiators have not yet explained the change, their decisions related to it may seem confusing and unreasonable to the rest of the organization.

5. The rumor mill gets active. Information has a way of leaking out. Rumors, though often inaccurate, still signal that a change is in the air.

6. You hear things from people outside the organization. They are often the first to know about change.

7. Certain co-workers are acting differently. If their behaviors seem strange to you, it could be because they know something you don’t.

8. More closed-door meetings take place. This is a reliable sign that something confidential—and significant—is taking place.

9. Management hints at the coming changes. The change initiators may share some information about the change, perhaps to test people’s reactions.

10. Meetings between unlikely people are taking place. If their roles don’t usually bring them together, this could be a sign that change is on the horizon.

11. Management is asking strange questions. They may be trying to gather data for the change.

12. Management evades questions about the future. If this happens, it’s fair to assume that something will happen, but it’s too early to discuss it.

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

sales organization of a large corporation: “To better serve our rapidly expanding customer base, we are realigning our sales organization to be able to meet this objective. A new organizational reporting chart is attached.”

Sounds pretty logical, right? But the organization’s reporting chart shows a significant reduction in the number of salespeople in the new organization. If you were affected by this change, surely you would ask yourself: “Is this reor-ganization really about trying to serve the customer better, or is it simply about reducing the number of people in our salesforce? Is the real purpose of this change to cut operat-ing costs?” It is entirely possible that a smaller, more efficient salesforce may indeed serve the customer better.

But if this is the case, why wasn’t this stated as the objective of the changes being made? This is an impor-tant point that everyone, particularly those who sponsor it, must understand as change is introduced. If you want everyone in the organization to support the change, they need to fully understand its true objectives.

Follow the duck test—if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and smells like a duck, then it probably is a duck! People know a duck when they see one. Similarly, people know the difference between an initiative to get closer to the customer and a cost-cutting effort.

Is the Reorganization About People or Process?If the change is about people, it was probably designed to give people either more or less responsibility. If it is about process, certain functions of the organization will be changed. This is where the subtleties of organizational change come into play.

Sometimes the purpose may be clearly stated as an effort to develop certain people for future assignments. Sometimes, however, the purpose is a little harder to decipher. Process changes may involve different personnel assignments, but their main purpose is to make opera-tions more efficient. If you think the change is to address a problem, then it is likely about process.

The distinctions to watch for are in the stated objectives for each type of change. In either case, you will have an excellent glimpse of the long-term strategy of the organization’s leadership and where their plans will take the company.

Watch Out for Reorganizations in DisguiseSometimes reorganizations are disguised, to try to avoid upset feelings or other emotional impacts on the

organization. Regardless of what it is called, reorganiza-tion by any other name is still a reorganization.

The difficulty is that it isn’t like the duck test. Although it doesn’t look like a duck, sound like a duck, or smell like a duck, it is still a duck! Calling a downsizing by some other name may make it seem less traumatic in the short term, or reduce its impact on the public, but ultimately it weak-ens the credibility of the change initiators. Just as in other aspects of life, actions speak louder than words.

Watch for what actually occurs after a change announcement. Do you see a hidden agenda behind the change? The better the observer you are, the more opportunity you will have to position yourself positively for coming changes.

Keep in mind that organizational change is a dynamic process—one that never really ends. A basic survival skill in organizations today is the ability to deal positively with constant change.

It is like swimming in an ocean of change. No sooner has one wave of change hit you than another is on its way. If you let the first wave knock you down, you risk being drowned by the next one. But if you learn to ride the first wave, the second will propel you even further ahead.

Peter R. Garber is the author of more than 50 books and training products on a wide variety of human resources and business topics. He has worked as a human resources professional for more than 30 years and is manager of employee relations for PPG Industries. He can be reached at garber@ppg .com.

This article is excerpted from More Turbulent Change (ATD Press, 2012).

© ATD 2015



Why Do So Many Organizational Change Efforts Fail?

by Robert M. Tobias

The brutal fact pointed out by Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria in their May 2000 Harvard Business Review article is that about 70 percent of all change ini-tiatives fail. This is true, they explain,

whether the efforts involve installing new technology, downsizing, restructuring, or trying to change corporate culture. The failure of leaders to challenge themselves to change, and then model the behavior they seek in others, may be a large contributor to these failures.

Current Change ModelsThere are many models for conducting organizational change, and they all seem to focus on the process steps that the organization must take to initiate and implement a change effort. But the role Mahatma Gandhi defined for change leaders to “be the change that you wish to see in the world,” is rarely included.

Simply defined, successful organizational change means those who are affected by the change effort change not only their job title, office space, or place on the organization chart, but actually change their behavior. Fortunately, many recog-nize that accomplishing organizational change is difficult. In fact, a huge consulting industry has developed to assist orga-nizations with change. But like the models they follow, they often fail to include how to change leader behavior.

For example, John Kotter in Leading Change created a broadly used eight-step strategy for implementing orga-nizational change:

• establish a sense of urgency for change • form a coalition of leaders who support the change effort

• create a vision for the change • communicate the need for change • empower others to action • create short-term goals and celebrate success • consolidate the improvements • institutionalize the new behaviors.

Another example, and perhaps the oldest is the orga-nization change model designed by Kurt Lewin in the 1950s. It contains three stages:

• Stage 1—Unfreeze the existing culture by preparing it to accept the proposed change.

• Stage 2—Change or transition from the existing to the desired culture.

• Stage 3—Freeze the new culture in place.

Both the Kotter and Lewin organizational change models define the role of the leader as an influencer and persuader. They implicitly assume that the success of the change effort is contingent on the leader’s ability to be successful in changing the behaviors of the people they lead. However, there is no mention of changing the leader’s behavior in either model.

New Approach to ChangeFor change to work, a leader must be able to articulate what changes are necessary in his own behavior. Then, the leader must personally—and authentically—state why it is difficult to change while modelling the desired changed behavior. Without that difficult, challenging, and yet crucial step, the likelihood of a change effort’s success is remote.

Leaders in the federal sector are constantly bombard-ing those they lead with change messages:

• “Change is the new normal.” • “Change is necessary because of reduced budgets.” • “We must change to meet public needs.”

Unfortunately, these messages cause uncertainty and anxiety. In addition, it is unclear from these messages what change is most important or what change is actu-ally being initiated by the organization. Not surprising, oftentimes the result is paralysis.

In this context, leaders must struggle to garner the attention of those they lead. Leaders who focus only

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

on what behaviors must change run the risk of being ignored, perceived (at a minimum) as out-of-touch, and thought of as arrogant. If employees believe they are being asked to change but the leader feels no need to change his own behaviors, it is unlikely that those being led will respond positively.

My Own ExperienceI learned this lesson firsthand in the mid-1980s when I was president of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). I wanted to change NTEU’s culture from “fight every battle to the death” to “fight every battle to the death or collaborate.” I wanted union staff and local leaders to develop new skills to become more collaborative with fed-eral managers, while retaining their adversarial skills.

To be sure, winning is wonderful. But I came to understand the value of being a collaborator, as well as an adversary, in a labor-management relationship. Win-ning individual or class-action cases solved one problem, but a collaborative relationship might solve many prob-lems on a regular basis, I thought.

But I couldn’t enact the change I sought, and I was blind to reasons why my efforts were failing. Although the Kotter model was not published until 1996, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that I followed it:

• I created a sense of urgency by stating we needed more tools, including collaboration, to solve our members’ problems.

• I brought local union leaders and union staff together to create a vision that included collaborative as well as adversarial tools.

• I developed a plan for communicating the vision. • I empowered local leaders to create a collaborative labor management relationship with local managers.

• I identified short-term wins.

When the short-term wins did not materialize, though, I reconvened the planning group and asked why. The answer, embarrassingly, turned out to be me.

I followed our communication plan and made many speeches urging local union leaders and members to change their behavior to include collaboration. But when I spoke to them personally, I asked only about their adversarial successes. I didn’t ask about the problems they were facing as they implemented their collaborative efforts; I asked whether a grievance or unfair labor prac-tice had been filed or a negotiation begun.

Bottom line: When the union’s political success—and my reputation and job satisfaction—were based on winning in adversarial contests, for me to stop seeking to win every encounter in court or bargaining table was a challenge. Indeed, I spoke about collaboration, but my behavior spoke to the existing adversarial culture. I was asking them to change, but I was not changing. I was not behaving consistent with what I said. I was not authentic.

When I realized this disconnect, I was able to ask myself why. I realized how much I loved to win, and how painful it was to contemplate giving up that feeling of success. I also understood that asking those I led to give up something important to them, while I resisted change for myself, was accurately perceived as arrogant.

Once I came to terms with my own reluctance to change, I could discuss with others why I loved to win—and how hard it was to give up trying to prevail in every contest. I became authentic, and the team could have an honest but difficult dialogue about change. I could be supportive, empathetic, and credibly insistent, because I was facing the same barriers to change they were facing.

Basically, I learned that leading change is first about changing my own behaviors, and that refusing to change will doom the effort.

Become the Change You SeekWe know that far too many people have been told to pre-pare for organizational change, participated in planning meetings, and created new organization charts anticipat-ing change. But these efforts become a charade when the announced change never comes to fruition because every-one continues to behave as they have done in the past.

The result is a new layer of cynicism among employ-ees. Worse, it is even more difficult to gain their buy-in when the next organizational change effort is announced. The price of failed change only increases the cost and risk that the next change initiative will not succeed.

I learned this lesson the hard way. I came to under-stand that it is not the led who must change first, it is the leader. It is important for the leader to acknowledge the need to change, struggle to change, and then credibly help others change. Otherwise, organizations will continue achieving a 70 percent failure rate.

Robert M. Tobias is director of Business Development, Key Executive Leadership Programs at American University. He can be reached at [email protected].

© ATD 2015



Creating “Talent-Enabled” Change Leaders

By Walter McFarland

A frequent topic in my discussions with federal employees is their frustration with the current environment of nearly con-stant change. The frustration is less about the pace of change and more about the

continuing inability to change successfully—a frustration shared by people in organizations around the world.

Organizational change is one of the most-talked-about and least-understood phenomena of the 21st cen-tury. The simple truth is that in spite of legions of people claiming to be “change experts,” true organizational change remains an elusive goal.

In spite of best efforts by academics, consultants, and managers, the majority of change efforts—everywhere—continue to underperform or fail outright, according to Mick Cope’s Financial Times/Prentice Hall article, “The Seven Cs of Consulting.” Daryl Conner, an organiza-tional change specialist, estimates that the failure rate is often between 70 and 75 percent.

Organizational change might be most difficult in the public sector. My experiences with change as an employee of the federal government—and as an external change consultant to the federal government—underscore the special complexity. Reasons for this complexity include:

• the sheer number of stakeholders • the magnitude of competing priorities • legal and regulatory considerations • the constant turnover of senior leaders • political factors.

These and other factors combine to make lasting changes in the federal government very difficult indeed. Can organizational change in the federal government be done better, and if so, what is a good first step?

Research for my book, published in 2013, suggests that leadership is a primary factor in successful organiza-tional change—an observation that isn’t new. Research-ers and managers have long noted the important role of

change leaders—often referred to as “change agents”—in successful change. What is new is the suggestion that specific actions by change leaders are important to the success of change efforts—and that some of these actions focus on talent development.

Fortunately, equipping a new generation of change leaders with enhanced skills in talent development can improve organizational change outcomes, increase engagement, and build new capabilities in federal agencies.

Leadership and ChangeThe literature consistently cites leadership as an impor-tant factor in successful organizational change, along with such things as detailed planning, organization-wide communication, persistence, celebration of success, and more. The 60 executives from 14 Fortune Global 500 organizations who were interviewed for Choosing Change overwhelmingly picked effective leadership as the most important factor in organizational change.

These leaders told numerous stories about how great change leaders made “all the difference” during times of profound organizational turbulence. Often, great change leaders were praised for saving their organizations in times of crisis.

It should be noted that bad change leaders were also frequently mentioned—and in the most disparag-ing of ways. Poor change leaders were blamed for mis-sion failure, unnecessary expense, low morale, wasted effort, and more.

There was a clear consensus that developing a cadre of great change leaders is an important step in perform-ing change. But what are the skills that set great change leaders apart?

The most consistent answer among the executives interviewed was this: Great change leaders seemed able to effectively balance two key roles during organiza-tional change efforts—business manager and talent

© ATD 2015


FORUM:

developer. Said another way, the best change leaders are “talent-enabled.”

Change Leader as Business ManagerThe role of business manager involves managing the busi-ness aspects of the change effort and ensuring that it achieves its goals and objectives. In this role, the change leader ensures the change effort stays on schedule, within budget, and performs well. Actions taken by the change leader in this role include creating change plans, allocating resources, maintaining schedules, managing risk, engaging staff, and managing their performance during the effort.

Some of the executives interviewed expressed the view that the role of business manager was “necessary but not sufficient” in leading organizational change. A key reason is that this role does not focus enough on people during change efforts. In this view, the less engaged peo-ple become in a change effort, the less likely it is to suc-ceed. Enter the role of “talent developer.”

Change Leader as Talent DeveloperThe role of talent developer involves focusing on the development of people during the change effort. In this role, the change leader focuses on the developmental needs and aspirations of team members, actively helps team members make sense of and navigate the change effort, and creates a robust environment for learning.

The executives interviewed suggested that several actions were important in performing the role of talent developer:

• Develop people constantly. Great talent developers develop people before, during, and after change efforts. Because they are proven developers of people, they have immediate credibility as a change leader. Great talent developers understand and use adult learning principles to guide their development agenda.

• Make talent development personal. Talent devel-opers know the members of their team individually. They understand the specific development needs of each team member and use the change effort as a tool for meeting them. Talent developers help team members achieve professional and personal develop-ment goals.

• Pay equal attention to the business and talent development aspects of organizational change. Talent developers don’t get so caught up in the change effort that time for talent development is

crowded out. Regardless of how urgent the change effort becomes, how busy the day, or how intense the personal pressure, they consistently make time to develop the people on their team.

• Create a work environment conducive to learning. Talent developers do this by making their organi-zations great places to think—even during change. Neuroscientists tell us that when the work environ-ment becomes confusing and stressful, the brain can respond by entering a “threat state.” When in a threat state, the brain loses its ability to perform its best, most complex thinking. Said another way, change efforts that are poorly led can deprive people of their ability to help the organization most—just when this help is most needed.

Great talent developers create an oasis for great thinking in at least two important ways. First, they actively help team members make sense of the change effort as it unfolds. They use their experience, exper-tise, and insight to help people understand the change effort—and their role in it. Second, when necessary, they personally absorb the shocks, and “take the hits” to ensure their team can learn and perform.

• Build talent development across the organiza-tion. Talent developers actively model key learning-related behavior. They create and share knowledge, they use knowledge created by others, they ensure knowledge is captured and is accessible to the larger organization.

“Talent-Enabled” Change LeadersThe federal government is experiencing profound budget constraints, making new investments very difficult. Still, a government-wide pilot program could be initiated to develop a small cadre of talent-enabled change leaders. The goals of these change leaders would include:

• performing organizational change better, faster, and more cheaply over time

• demonstrating increased mission effectiveness • improving overall agility and responsiveness • increasing the engagement of federal employees.

The performance of these change leaders—and the cost savings realized—could be tracked over time. In the absence of a cadre of talent-enabled change leaders, other steps could be taken by federal agencies to elevate the importance of talent development in change efforts:

© ATD 2015



• Talent development could become a formal, stated goal of all organizational change efforts.

• Talent development considerations could be built into all change plans.

• The performance of change leaders could be assessed on their effectiveness as talent developers.

The federal government is experiencing a period of transformation. New stakeholders, new and larger mis-sions, budget austerity, national security concerns, and many other factors are combining to create an environ-ment of nearly continuous change that is stressful to the federal workforce. In addition, there is real doubt about the ability of the federal government to sustain the cur-rent rate of change—given the track record of change efforts in every sector.

An important step in increasing the success of organi-zational change is to create “talent-enabled” change leaders. These leaders would use organizational change as a tool for accelerating the development of the federal workforce,

increasing engagement, and improving mission-aligned performance.

Walter McFarland is the founder of Windmill Human Performance and a former senior vice president at Booz|Allen|Hamilton in the areas of learning, HR, and change. His clients include Fortune Global 500 organizations, international organizations, government agencies, and not-for-profit organizations. McFarland was the 2013 Board Chair of the American Society of Training & Development (ASTD), and was a member of President Obama’s 2012 and 2013 Rank Award Council. He is the co-author of Choosing Change from McGraw-Hill; the “Neuroscience of Motivation” chapter in the Handbook of NeuroLeadership (2013); and the “Neuroscience of Learning” chapter in the ASTD Handbook (2014). He can be reached at [email protected].

+ DIGITAL ARCHIVE

DEVELOPING HIGH-PERFORMANCE LEADERSHIP TEAMSLynda McDermott

HUMAN CAPITAL

at workTIPS, TOOLS & INTELLIGENCE FOR DEVELOPING TALENT

SEPTEMBER 2014ISSUE 1409

With a new single-topic issue each month, TD at Work (formerly Infoline) grows your professional competency in crucial areas of expertise. With exciting new subscriber benefits, including a digital archive dating back to 2000, you don’t want to miss out.

Subscribe today to get 12 issues a year!

Learn more about subscription benefits at www.td.org/tdatwork.

Talent DevelopmentDELIVERED

0215

81.9

535

© ATD 2015

td at work - change in government forum

Documents

meaningful change

change efforts

transformational change

continuous change

organizational change

federal government

seeand believethat real

creating change readiness