Leading Critical Change

Over many years managing projects worldwide my experience has been that Brits talk to much in meetings held in english with international colleagues. Here are some of my thoughts on what has contributed to a history of British verbal excesses across the globe .

1. Inexperience

In the English language: non-British = Foreign = strange and different. Inexperienced Brits speak too fast, use jargon, make private jokes with other Brits in meetings … This is plain rude! It is only nerves – but the impression left is damaging – that Brits think they are superior, and that non-British colleagues have less to contribute.

2. Wrong Team

When the “who” and “why” is wrong or unclear then interactions degenerate towards personal agendas or self-justification. Unproductive talking encourages others to join or attempt to redirect. For meetings in English – the native speakers dominate.

3. Unstructured Interactions

In unstructured meetings big talkers dominate – if English is the language of the meeting – the native speakers have the advantage. They often do not leave any space for the non-native speakers who need more time to formulate thoughts.

4. British Culture (1)

Adversarial debate is ingrained in British culture – i.e. “if you don’t agree with me it must be because I have not got my point across well enough (or you are stupid) and I need to restate my case”. This leads to Brits talking too much.

5. British Culture (2)

We are also action oriented. But in an international environment you just cannot leap to defining actions as the first step as fundamental assumptions somewhere in the chain ….. ( situation –> issue –> root cause –> solution options –> best solution –> components of solution –> specific actions –> deadlines –> ownership) may not be shared with all of your colleagues. In a multinational environment personal assumptions about ‘how things work’ are more likely to be incorrect!

Culturally Europeans especially want to focus more on building consensus around the whole story chain – whereas the ‘Brits’ and the ‘Yanks’ go straight for the actions. This leads to misalignment and a lot of debate – often heated.

MY TOP-TIPS

- be clear on purpose and participation (written mission)
- make structured space in agendas for each individual to contribute effectively
- prepare for each interaction 1-on-1 with each individual (listen and coach)
- chair and manage interactions tightly almost like a Question Time presenter
- build consensus using the chain to get from situation to actions
- check and recheck assumptions and statements in meetings (repeat & write down)
- have non-business interactions to build personal relationships

Working out of the UK has really helped my work back in the UK.

How lazy we all are here in our interactions. We make huge assumptions about how others think and how things get done. I have found that using the same techniques back in the UK has made a huge impact.

Consider any programme. There are two scenarios:

(1) The right programme leaders are in place – in their opinion they don’t need a lot of busy body PMO bods scrutinising their plans and picking them up on the quality and quantity of their administration ….

(2) The wrong programme leaders are in place – the PMO tries very hard to force these wrong people to do the right job – against the odds. Management hold the PMO responsible for not achieving this transformation ….

Who would be in the Programme Office?

I have been recently looking at what online tools are available to support the planning and governance of strategy implementation. The one good thing they all recognise is that using spreadsheets or Microsoft project “can be cumbersome and overcomplicated and mask the overall picture – which is where you really need to focus”. So far so good. But two things strike me about the current crop of ‘more strategic’ online tools:

(1) All still depend on excellent information input from the people tasked with creating and deploying the plans in order that the plans are consistent and coherent; i.e. even readable ….. never mind aligned! Even if the information is great – the outputs are not visual or compelling. Nobody has ever been motivated by a scorecard.

(2) Despite their criticisms of MS Project and spreadsheets, the assumption remains that management requires constant visibility of progress and access to the detail. I have never experienced this, and consider it potentially counterproductive. Why should senior management need to focus on all the detail if they have tasked the right leaders in the business with the right strategic objectives?

My experience from rescue of even the largest, most diverse and complex programmes…. keep management at the level where they have the most impact -the top level – objective setting, prioritisation and alignment, allocation of the right leadership and corporate resources – and removal of barriers to delivery. Leave the detail to ‘the right leadership resources’. My search for suitable supporting online tools continues ….

Most project reporting tools only report achievements against commitments. That means until a target is missed – management know nothing (lets face it % task completion tells us nothing useful). Managing Behind!

I require that commitment owners use visual plans to report every week on the status of future commitments – green (I will make the date and the objective), amber (I have some issues I may need help with – but we should make it if we resolve them), or red (I won’t make either the date or the objective so we need to re-plan and assess the impact on other projects or the business).

Simple, meaningful and visual. Managing In Front!

Although very strong technical expertise and leadership may well be required to select and implement the right IT solutions, ultimately it is the level of commitment from the business that determines the success of any large IT change project.

Business priority, clear vision, specification of requirements, choice of the right solution, leadership of organisation and process change – these are the components that create optimum return on investment (ROI) and the fastest, smoothest implementation. Like it or not the business sees itself as the owner for these components. IT can contribute, enable, facilitate – but it can never lead even if it is perfectly capable.

The business has to own and lead major IT change projects.

This seems to disenfranchise the CIO but actually puts the accountability in the right place. This can produce another issue – the business may not have the skills required to put together and lead a large project.

A real issue – but not solved by giving IT the leadership of a business change project.

You would never buy a company or a house without very detailed validation of what you are buying and whether it fits your needs. So why are many IT solutions and services contracts signed before detailed requirements and validation work is completed?

Solutions providers will tell you that this is because this is ‘how things are done’ in the industry. Maybe this is why solutions contracts are almost always late and costs greatly exceed original budgets.

A detailed due diligence prior to contract signature requires the business to commit to specific requirements – exposing potential change issues – and allows external validation of solutions against those requirements. This enables an ‘outcomes-based contract’ to be written with the solution provider. They won’t like this – but tough. Retaining commercial leverage is impossible without contracted commitment (cost and timeline) to well specified outcomes.

Due diligence takes longer but saves “months and millions”.

Please note – it is also possible to do due diligence after contract signature and use this to re-negotiate or even cancel contracts – not an ideal process – messy – but ‘Project Rescue’ has required this action on a number of occasions.

Never buy a system or application you have not seen in action in a real business like your own. Being first means you are paying development costs; and also that the costs and risks of implementation are unknown.

Well chosen references not only answer ‘fit for purpose?’ questions but provide insights into implementation risks, ongoing support challenges and return on investment. Good reference contacts are not always forthcoming from solution providers and onerous to organise….

But would you buy a house you had never visited?

Widespread business change is enormously costly and risky. Commitment of any function to change is entirely driven by self interest. The return on investment and effort has to be obvious and far and away above the cost. For cross functional change the benefits sought need to be at or very near the top of the CEO’s priority list.

Important, Urgent and Top Priority?

If any of the above are missing or not clear. There will be serious problems – sooner or later. Focus on the biggest benefit items also confines the scope of the project to a core set of requirements – which saves considerable cost and time.

But this is irrelevant if commitment is not secured. Even with projects close to completion, time spent clarifying how return on investment will be achieved helps re-energise and focus the whole business around ‘what it will take to deliver’.

A failing project – what is needed? Knowledge? Know-how? But what kind? If the real issue is a failure to coordinate the expertise already within the business then adding more may not help. Worse, it could send a “you lot don’t know what you are talking about!” message to the existing team.

Some years ago I started to notice that my most successful projects were those where I was NOT a subject matter expert. I became an ‘honest broker’, working with all parties – teams, management and stakeholders – looking for solutions that all parties could sign up to. Broader skills and experience came into play to provide external challenge and support management of the project and issues. A lack of subject matter knowledge was never the issue. I provided different things.

I had never ‘done retail’ before I took the position of programme director for the Mothercare turnaround in 2003. The need was for someone to lead and deliver massive change across the whole organisation in just 18 months – not retail knowledge….

Being a ‘subject matter dummy’ keeps ownership of aspirations and outcomes within the business – where they belong.

Are current issues symptoms of wider ills? A struggling project could be an opportunity to bring different ways of working into the organisation.

In normal circumstances it is tough to get buy-in for behaviour changes but within a troubled project all participants are usually very open to new approaches. If the project is rescued these approaches get credibility and the people involved gain experience and confidence and have developed new skills.

I get these benefits from every project I do. So do my clients.