There are LOTS of statistics around issues of improvement, and most of them could be positively impacted if we stepped back a little… Organizations abandon 50% to 70% of strategies because the strategies fail to take hold in the organization or achieve desired results in the time expected. Only 30% of strategic initiatives succeed, on time. This may certainly apply to related issues of change and innovation.
Research shows that you achieve strategic speed by focusing on people (surprise, surprise!), but many leaders mistakenly pursue speed mainly by manipulating processes, systems, and technologies in a bid to become more efficient.
The three most important people factors around the issues of managing and leading innovation and change are thought to be:
- CLARITY is a shared, clear understanding of the situation and the direction in which you’re headed.
- UNITY is whole-hearted agreement on the merits of that direction and on the need to work together to move ahead.
- AGILITY is a willingness to turn and adapt quickly while keeping strategic goals in mind.
(the above are taken from an “Inside Training” email, 8/11/10)
Company cultures and the related issues of trust and ownership are critical. Some find it much easier than others. Having shared successes in the past most certainly helps moving things forward in the future.
More commonly, many people find that discovery and ideation more often go through these three stages:
- Initial ridicule
- Violent passionate opposition
- Acceptance as the obvious solution.
I liked the concept of Scott Adams in The Dilbert Principles:
“Change is good. You go first.
Managing implementation and change MAY be slightly different from
The Six Phases of Project Implementation:
1 – Enthusiasm for the initiative
2 – Disillusionment with initial results
3 – Panic as things fall apart
4 – Search for the Guilty
5 – Punishment of the Innocent
6 – Praise and Honor for the Non-Participants
In those kinds of company cultures, there is also often followup / fallout from that first project as organizations try to benefit from their learning experience.
The Six Phases of a second project might then be viewed as
1 – Mild enthusiasm combined with unexpressed general concern
2 – Search for volunteers
3 – Avoidance of involvement
4 – Search for anything positive
Discussions of a THIRD project are generally tabled for later discussion. MUCH later…
In reality, there are ways to successfully implement innovation and improvements. The actuality will differ from organization to organization for a number of reasons, but most generally, it would seem to be HOW the organization reacts to the issues and problems found in continuous continuous improvement. Are the successes rewarded (intrinsically and extrinsically) and are the failures positively viewed (by ALL) as learning experiences and activities to set the stage for future attempts?
Remember that there are seldom actually failures in projects. There are just non-successes that most will try to distance themselves from given the normal cultural responses and reactions.
To change this, we have to change things, we need to do things differently to lead innovation and improvement.
My change model is about clarity of mission (and all that related stuff), being uncomfortable with the way things are now, having peer SUPPORT for the changes and having a previous success(es) with making individual change.
We can accomplish all the above with employee engagement and facilitated interaction at the supervisor level.
My approach is to share the model with people in a facilitation and then get their active involvement in what we need to do differently. I allow them to clarify what is not clear in the mission and what we might do to better support each other, for example. An open discussion builds trust and support (and links right back to the model in an obvious way). Minimize Surprise.
Start things simply. Take some small steps:
I try to generate increasing involvement in the analysis and recommendations of next steps as we roll forward. They get better at it over time and with increasing trust in each other.
If the mission is not clear, or we need to generate one, I use a simple approach (see this for the toolkit for developing a mission statement). Or, I might later work to manage perceived roadblocks (see this for more information about our toolkit on roadblock management).
Remember this simple fact: We improve by building on successes.
Dr. Scott Simmerman is a designer of team building games and organization improvement tools. Managing Partner of Performance Management Company since 1984, he is an experienced presenter and consultant.
Connect with Scott on Google+ – you can reach Scott at firstname.lastname@example.org
Also published on Medium.