THE YEAR OF LINEAR THINKING. OR NOT.

For years, we’ve had an on-and-off debate with our change colleagues.  [Mostly off, to tell the truth.]

These disagreements center on the nature of change:  Is it linear?  And more, can we superimpose different change frameworks (whether Prosci or Kotter or Bridges or you-fill-in-the-blank) on a human process that, quite frankly, doesn’t always respond to a one-step-at-a-time logic?

Case in point:  One of our clients was incredibly frustrated when a project went AWOL, primarily because executive sponsors had to tend to other burning platforms.   Not ours, obviously.   We went back to start, analyzed, compared it to other shifts in the business, and found that, yes, human ADD simply pushed it away.  Over-multi-tasking was the culprit.

Solving change problems, to us, must consider the human element.  Any number of managers and leaders can nod and give lip service to a specific effort, say, around the supply chain.  The business case, the sense of urgency, the executive sponsors, and the project team might be in play.  But it’s human:  Managers might forget.  Allocate their time elsewhere.  Be called into work on a different initiative.  Or simply resist in a passive-aggressive way, and stymie progress.

Or, another scenario:  Everyone nods, and buys in.  They agree, this IT or HR or cost-saving change must happen for the business to grow.  Change chugs along until – yup – a pocket of the population isn’t motivated or willing to shift attitudes, behaviors, roles, or whatever they’re being asked to do.  Back to the business case, then.

Bottom line:  Thinking linearly doesn’t work for us when driving change.  Sure, frameworks are handy, if only to remind you what needs to be done.  Instead, we prefer moving in a non-straightforward manner, making the connections we need to make at the times we need to make them, and in the ways they need to be made.  Definitely messy, but it works. 

Is this your year to break out and through change?

A NEW KIND OF INFLUENCER

Next to the August Harvard Business Review’s cover article on influence – and how to wield it, the type of confidante-companion-influencer we’re thinking about is less dramatic.  But potent, nonetheless.

Our idea stems from the personal shopper hired, usually, by department stores, often, by high-end boutiques.  Popular in the ‘80s, image stylists’ employment waned during the 90s and ‘aughts, but now is flourishing.

The reasons are many:  To bridge the gap between on-line retailing and stores.  To offer consumers a winnowing of the humongous variety available on the Internet.  To give shoppers a one-on-one friend who will validate their choices, naysay any non-figure flatterers, and, in general, become her go-to buddy for purchases – and other paraphernalia.

That last reason is the critical one.  Sure, apps now exist that can take the place of this personal shopper, in many cases linking an actual salesperson via texts and images to a potential buyer.  There is, though, no substitute for a “live-and-in-person” friend, one who will be frank about what you’ve selected.

Why not, then, a similar live app for work? Gallup has long advocated for a best friend at work, citing it as one important employee engagement criterion.  Yet a best friend won’t always truth-tell, especially in corporate America.  Mentors, too, exist in a different sphere; their function is more coach and sponsor than confidante and companion.  The buddy system usually works during the onboarding of a new hire, left behind when that newbie finds his/her grounding in the business.  And our manager is, well, our manager.

Combine the best of personal shopper with work friend, though, is our thinking.  All of us can use an objective sounding board, an individual who also understands us and our interests.  No one we know would turn down the opportunity to spend time with an influencer, and that mutual investment of time.  An inside confidante will know the players, understand the context, and act as a trusted guide when gut and experience aren’t clicking.

Call it MyInfluencer.com – and make sure it’s real.   [PS:  Please credit us.]

CONVERSATIONS, REDUX

The oh-so-trendy digital detox was forced on us last week.

Yes, involuntarily.

Our cell phones had no bars and signals.  Cyber-connections were either the speed of the 1980s or non-existent (and pricey, when they were available).  And the normal U.S.A. media, from TVs to radios, were all dominated by news and features we had no interest in.

Sure, we were warned that our vacation spot had those limitations.  But knowing doesn’t always equate to being prepared for the tsunami emotions of “OMG, I can’t log in or find out what’s going on!”

Instead, we engaged in conversations.  Lots of them.  And found that our fellow travelers and had some very intriguing lives and philosophies.  As did the country natives.  We also discovered the pleasure of reading with all senses, listening with full intent, and looking, really observing the activities and people around us.

All of those benefits were further underscored when we skimmed over the recent Real Simple-Huffington Post survey of 3,500 wired women.  No surprise:  Seventy-six percent checked smartphones hourly.  Three in four texted while driving.  Checking Facebook was de rigueur multiple times every 60 minutes.  Participants admitted to experiencing some ups and downs to this always-on world, from convenience and networking to distractions and impersonal-ness. 

So what’s a communicator, marketer, designer, and others to do?  Two obvious moves which many in corporate America have embraced:  Either designate one tech-free day a week (or more, if the culture will allow it) and/or sign off on the weekends. 

Less apparent are those strategies that change behaviors, such as training leaders and workers in the art of meaningful conversations.   Or establishing common sense guidelines, with the full understanding of social media’s impact and seductiveness.

Otherwise, we could each pay up to $1,500 for a three-day adult rehab camp.  Lanyards, anyone?

THE E*D*U*C*A*T*I*O*N OF US

The jury’s still out, as they say.

Everyone, though, agrees on one fact:  The current (and sad) state of American education.  After that, there’s zip consensus, with remedies as wide ranging as our demographics, from charter schools and online curricula to the strict disciplines and draconian demands of the early to mid-20^th century. 

Our take:  No one’s right.  And no one agrees.

What bothers us most about this ongoing, never-settled argument are the implications for us, as mentors, coaches, and teachers for our professions.  A healthy debate, according to our thinking, should be about forever learning, or life-long education.  The skills and knowledge we accrue throughout our earlier business years only serves as a great foundation for continuing to feed ourselves intellectually.

Yet there’s always a but. 

All these ruminations got started when we volunteered last year as teaching assistants in an urban Midwestern elementary school.  Now we’re interacting with what might be would-be communicators and designers and marketers of tomorrow. 

It’s not pretty.  Kids can’t spell, can’t read, can’t do simple math – in spite of one-on-one work and patient repetitions and drills.    They do like to draw, and express themselves freely when asked for visual representations of concepts and numbers.  And they’re extremely voluble, looking for conversations about home and life and the world.  But not about school and education.

What does that mean for us as practitioners?  Where are the future change leaders and branding experts?  And how do we engage our staff, our teams in not only helping them learn and grow, but supporting  others in their brain- and capability-building efforts?

It’s a puzzlement.  And a very personal responsibility that begs for hearing about lessons learned – from others.

OF FENG SHUI AND FORECASTS

With any new year, East or West, almost everyone succumbs to the temptation to predict.

This time, it’s the Lunar celebration, with more than a billion of our Asian neighbors at home with family.

Some of the media’s annual visions are way too easy … and snore-able.  Like Canadian pop star and “we’re so over him” Justin Bieber will get into more trouble again.  Setting records in temperature and natural disasters, unfortunately, seems to prevail, given climate change.  Fighting looms over local conflicts – in the Middle East in particular.

Other forecasts depend on a wide application of common sense:  The economy’s slated to be up in the West, subdued in the East, with scaled-down spending on luxury items.  The Affordable Care Act will still be in the hospital, holding a diagnosis of “wait and see.”  Cost-cutting continues in the business arena, with corporate chiefs still uncertain about full-speed-ahead profitability.

This Year of the Horse, though, doesn’t address the trends in our profession.  Again, instinct and experience say that change is our constant.  What will matter is how well we accept change, indeed, how smartly we anticipate it.  It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to recognize that digital dominance is here and now.  Or that employees will continue to seek meaning in work.  Or that consumers need to be segmented into even more and smaller cohort groups.  Or that advertising is forever searching for the magic metric.

Our task is to figure out how to best use these trends, these changes – to our advantage and to our employer’s.  Why wait for the next best disruptor?  We could, using what we’ve learned, develop our own crystal ball – and what’s more, activate it.  Master the realm of the new and newer and yet-to-be media.  Emphasize individual contributors, holistically.  Network with and review group formations on different e-platforms.  Apply New Age measures to campaigns. 

No crystal ball needed.  Just wisdom, a shot of courage, and the ability to take change in hand.