December 2, 2014 Leave a comment
Change Logic co-founder, Charles O’Reilly, offers some insights on how to create a culture of success, produced by the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
October 28, 2014 Leave a comment
Roughly 10,000 executives have attended the ‘Leading Change and Organizational Renewal ‘ (LCOR) program at HBS and Stanford over the past 25 years. Each participant brings a different challenge to solve: “I want to make my company more responsive to change”; “we need to accelerate execution of our strategy”; and, “our growth efforts are start, stop, with new ventures struggling to succeed.” They leave LCOR with a new way of looking at these challenges and a methodology they can replicate to overcome them.
What my co-leader at LCOR, Professor Charles O’Reilly, and I are learning is that the story doesn’t end there. Many of our LCOR participants take the opportunity to use this approach and design new ways for leading change within their corporations. I wanted to showcase a few of these approaches. I can’t share all of the company names, as some of the information is confidential.
View original post 697 more words
September 21, 2014 1 Comment
The most difficult question to answer in a change project is often ‘what will it be like when we get there?’ We know having a vision of the future is critical for motivation, yet, there are too many uncertainties preventing us from being specific. That’s why at Change Logic, we are experimenting with Graphic Facilitation as way of giving expression to the hopes, fears, and expectations of those involved in a change project. Check out some of the latest examples of graphic recording and learn more about how this approach could enhance your organization’s change journey.
Tamra Carhart, Director of Communications
September 9, 2014 2 Comments
Change projects often suffer from a surplus of good intentions and a deficit of disciplined effort. You get a senior leadership team together for a few days, assess what needs to change, build a plan, and get everyone aligned. If the workshop is good – our clients tell us that Change Logic runs outstanding senior leadership team sessions – then the organization can harness the excitement that the event generates. Leaders speak honestly about their challenges and commit to making change happen.
However, the following day, the ‘tyranny of the now’ can intrude and make it difficult to sustain the level of focus and intensity necessary to lead a successful business renewal. Day-to-day operations – customers, employees, product development meetings, business plan reviews –consume your time with legitimate and important demands. This sets up the familiar competition between what you’ve agreed is important and what is immediately urgent.
An extra twist on the important-urgent tension is that you are likely dealing with how to change deep-seated routines, behaviors, and mindsets. Even if you have time to complete the tangible actions that come out of a change workshop, it is still difficult to recreate that sense of commitment and motivation that made you believe ‘big’ change was possible.
Having lived through this a few times at Change Logic, we designed a method that would help our clients stay focused, engage a broader base of leaders in owning the change initiatives, and do so in a way that would energize the organization as a whole. So, the Sprint process was born. Borrowing some of the techniques and language of ‘Agile’ software development and embedding the insights from Mike Tushman and Charles O’Reilly, we have now led over twenty sprints across multiple industries. It’s enabled our clients to build new innovation businesses, embed new operating models, and rebuild go-to-market practices and processes, to name just a few of the change efforts using the Sprint model.
What are Sprints?
Simply, Sprints are how Change Logic clients create and maintain momentum to address their most critical strategic change priorities. Sprints allow clients to balance the practical mechanics with the social dimensions of change, the two elements that comprise the most intractable challenges organizations face today.
Sprints are the perfect antidote to the organizational inertia and resistance that so often haunt big transformational challenges; they recognize the complex, multi-dimensional nature of change and address the systemic barriers that other, more traditional approaches fail to address effectively.
Change: hard and soft
A key distinction is whether a change is purely about the organization hardware – process, structure, system – or whether it touches the software – people, capabilities, behaviors, and mindsets. If you only have to change “hardware”, then momentum, commitment, and engagement are not on the critical path; it’s a simple cause and effect relationship between action and result. Examples would be implementing a new IT system or managing an office move. There is still an important human dimension involved in this kid of shift, but it can be addressed through standard methods such as strong project management, training, and communications. We don’t need to change leadership behavior significantly or the social system of the organization. These are primarily “hardware” projects, in the realm of the knowable.1
However, most changes that we work on at Change Logic involve a response to uncertain market dynamics that may have implications for the core capabilities of an organization, and may confront power relationships between senior leaders. We are now in the realm of complexity, and that requires a different approach to managing change.
The critical part of this type of change is that we don’t know the answers at the outset. It requires an exploratory approach – one where we test potential solutions through smart experiments which address both the formal systems (processes, organization, skills) AND the social systems of culture and leadership. A typical client example would be moving from functionally focused ways of working to a collaborative model where multiple units need to align around shared priorities, often on a strict timeline. This will only work when we identify and shift the existing organizational dynamics and informal power structures. This is where we have found the Sprint Process to have significant impact.
How do Sprints work?
Sprints have several key elements/characteristics:
As a result, Sprints enable organizations to define, test, refine and implement complex transformation while avoiding the endless debates and political resistance that go along with these types of adaptations. At the same time, the organization learns how to shift on their own by developing the ability to continue managing transformation effectively and to continue adapting to the needs of today’s world.
The Change Logic Sprint approach can provide companies with real competitive advantage – we help them develop the ability to change and adapt faster and more effectively than their (often disruptive) competitors. To understand more about what we do and how we do it, please contact us at email@example.com
1Dr Dave Snowden has written about a powerful distinction between ‘Known’ and ‘Knowable’ problems where cause and effect applies: Complexity, where you only know what happened in retrospect, and Chaos, where there is not cause and effect.
by Peter Ainley-Walker
September 9, 2014 Leave a comment
In Sizing Exploratory Efforts, Virtue Stands in the Middle
Business leaders often identify the need to pursue an ambidextrous strategy when they realize that their tried and proven success formula is becoming either obsolete or a barrier to capture exciting new opportunities. Leaders rationally understand the need for organizations to excel at both the execution of current core operations and the exploration and development of new growth businesses. This exploration often requires the chartering of explore teams that are given greater organizational freedoms to push into new business models than those typically afforded to core product innovation and R&D functions. As the exploratory efforts are being shaped, our clients ask a common recurring question: “How large a budget and team should we assign?”
Organizations determine that they need a significant number (whatever that may be) in terms of budget and people to signal the importance of the new effort and to break from a past when they typically under-resourced entrepreneurial or exploratory activities. Overly conservative and profitability-focused core businesses inevitably constrain resources to high-uncertainty exploratory efforts that are years from having a direct P&L impact. Unfortunately, many organizations that invest heavily in R&D and innovation activities for their core markets and technologies feel the pressure to signal “importance” by the size of the investment relative to other innovation endeavors. We need to challenge this assumption.
While relieving the resource constraint is an important priority, lifting the constraint does not require large and explicit resource assignments that activate alternative organizational antibodies. Significant resource shifts from powerful core functions often become a source of tension with the new explore efforts before they start the first project. Moreover, once underway, the pressure to pursue size leads to quickly ballooning initiatives that risk poor execution. Over-resourcing often leads explore teams to ignore the benefits of resourceful small-scale experimentation; moreover, it also leads to exploratory efforts that are over-extended into diverging arenas that are too far away from the organization’s strategic fit. Perhaps most worrisome, over-resourcing allows organizations to pursue exploratory efforts without making the difficult choices on where they should be playing in the first place. The combination of poor execution, large scale, and high visibility can quickly undermine the credibility of the new exploratory efforts. The natural friction between these activities and the traditional core units does the rest, and a once promising renewal effort is slowly cast off into oblivion.
In order for exploratory units to succeed, leadership must simultaneously signal importance, promote support, and build credibility in the new exploratory efforts. What we often find is that our clients can achieve this by internalizing three principles:
At the start, leaders should signal the importance of the exploratory effort through continuous communication of an ambitious and inspiring vision. This vision should include both the current core businesses and the direction of the exploratory efforts. It should be backed by giving visibility and leadership support to the exploratory initiatives. Senior executive time and support is the scarcest resource that an organization can assign, but it’s worth it for senior leaders to make time for these initiatives. These actions go a long way to promoting a supportive environment while keeping the attention away from staff and budget concerns. Business leaders should allow the exploratory unit sufficient budget to identify and prepare worthy proposals, and challenge it to deliver initiatives that have evident merit.
Stable and long-running organizations have deep benches of experienced operational executives. However, developing new business ventures requires a different set of skills from running an established one. Any organization that embarks on the exploratory process to develop new business models is likely to face an experience curve. Under these conditions, they should start by targeting a relatively small portfolio of three to five strategic initiatives with large and early success potential. Our experience suggests that many of these are usually “hanging in the hallways,”–improperly managed or resourced projects that have already been suggested or tried unsuccessfully. They also usually pass the “I’ll-be-darned-if-we-can’t-do-this” test and, with the right context and a rigorous iterative validation process, they yield the early wins the organization needs to gain confidence in its exploratory unit.
Resolute leadership and exploratory capability aside, the ramp-up of the exploratory efforts needs to be a direct response to its investment opportunities: How promising are the market arenas the firm can target over the next three years? Are the resources we need to succeed in them available? While the only way to answer these questions is by carrying out the exploratory work, senior leaders need to recognize that external constraints could play a significant role in the ramp-up.
The effects of these constraints are evident in the evolution of the venture capital industry. A recent study of the state of the venture capital industry shows that the flow of investment-grade startups has plateaued at 1,500 to 2,000 per year over the past decade or so. This is despite the fact that VC firms have historically clustered around strong growth sectors such as software, biotech, electronics, and telecommunications. Moreover, the evolution of start-up ecosystems has favored talent hubs that provide new business ventures with ample selection and diversity of highly specialized individuals required for the new ventures to succeed. The steady state reached by the VC industry is a reflection of the industry and technology constraints that limit growth, while its strong hub nature is a reflection of the resource constraints.
A shared understanding of these three principles allows organizations to move into the actual work of exploring with the right mindset. It forces the organization to delay the inevitable resource tensions for a moment when it will be better equipped to make the right allocation decisions. It also keeps the explore efforts under the right mix of tensions, support, and freedoms to promote their future success.
September 9, 2014 Leave a comment
As a market disrupts, it is rarely clear what the implications will be for incumbents. Our clients wrestle with questions like: will online streaming displace broadcast TV completely? How will millennials affect the market for financial services? Will all scientific data be available free online as ‘open access’? Is the ‘Internet of Things’ a marketing label or a real business opportunity?
Most of these questions can’t be answered with traditional strategy tools; there are just too many variables. We advise our clients to launch experiments to test new value propositions to find out what customers value most and whether it is possible to build a new business around it. Often that means setting up a new Innovation Unit with responsibility for launching business experiments outside the traditional core business. Read more about what it takes to create a start-up within your core business in my blog post: In Medio Stat Virtus.
Additionally, we are launching a research project to benchmark practices in this arena and understand what structures, practices, processes and people work best; what CEOs and senior teams can do to make business experiments successful and highlight some of the pitfalls. Please contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org to participate.