I was honored to kick off 2020 with David James. This post is a replay of the 48 minute podcast. With the recent frequency of posts on the Point-of-Work topic, the podcast may help fill in the gaps. As always, David James did a superb job of interviewing…I just tried to keep up. It must […]
Tag: Change Leadership
Leading Change to full adoption implies that we not only manage Change to deployment, we must continue to lead Change through implementation…and beyond to the desired goal of full adoption.
Critical demands for ensuring workforce agility and resilience manifest beyond the current scope of the best training programs; the best training design, best development and delivery practices that many L&D organizations rely upon as standard methodology. For a workforce to consistently function at optimal agility and resiliency, we must evolve beyond the current linear paradigm that is only scoped to transfer knowledge and skills through training no matter how compelling and engaging we try to make it.
Categories
Define the “DO” First
When you consider how quickly business is moving, and the need for an agile and resilient workforce represents minimum criteria for creating sustained capability, the rules of engagement have clearly changed. Training cannot keep pace; scope and charter just do not match up when our new ground zero is located downstream in the post-training world…at the point of work…at the moment of need.
I fell into a discussion on the Chief Learning Officer network early this morning that asked, “What is the most effective governance model?” The second part of the question was, “How do you ensure the governance meets your performance objectives?” Having been up to my hocks in forming and storming through the birthing pains of several governance efforts, I had to shake off the tremors before I could offer a suggestion. It was actually the second part of the question that pulled my trigger. Granted, I did not [do not] fully understand what definition of “performance objectives” may have been implied, nevertheless, the trigger was tripped…and the response went something like this…
When do you abandon a vision? How many times can you run into a wall before deciding to stop trying to get over, under, or around it? Have you ever reached a level of frustration that caused you to ask yourself questions like these? Attempting to usher in Change, especially the kind that smacks of innovation can prompt these questions if the Change is not properly positioned. Innovation can feel threatening when introduced as new technology or new methodology. Selling Change successfully redirects emphasis from the solution to the impact anticipated from it.
Is innovation a methodology or is it the result of our efforts? One could successfully argue both sides of this question. With either position, there exists one consistent byproduct – Change. Regardless of definition, if we overlook creation of a sustained capability as our desired result, does it really matter how we define it?
Read details of a live interview on the topic “Change Leadership: When Change Management Is Not Enough”. Gary will lead a breakout session on this topic in IQPC’s Talent Management Summit held September 27-29 in Las Vegas.
Ask any IT professional if they have a repeatable process for Change Management (CM) and you can expect an unequivocal “Yes we do!” as the response, and likely suffer a sideways glance wondering what motivated such a ridiculous question. Take IT out of the equation for a moment and consider a transformational change like continuous learning. Tactical CM is a requirement, but it will not generate enough momentum to bridge the gap between deployment and implementation.This is a perfect example where Change Leadership (CL) is required to expand the scope of shepherding sustainable Change in and across the organization.