DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION: MANAGING CHANGE OVERLOAD...2014 © ACMP All Rights Reserved | #acmp2014 11...

2014 © ACMP All Rights Reserved | #acmp2014

DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION: MANAGING CHANGE OVERLOAD

JESSICA BRONZERT LINDA HOOPES, PHD

2 2014 © ACMP All Rights Reserved | #acmp2014

ADAPTATION CAPACITY – WHAT IS IT?

•  Adapting to change = closing the gap between expectations and reality

•  Adaptation requires energy (emotional, mental, physical)

•  Bigger disruptions use more energy •  The human capacity to absorb change is ]inite

—when it is depleted, dysfunction (unproductive behavior) occurs

•  Capacity ≠ resources

Material on this slide adapted from and used under license from Conner Partners.


THINK OF CAPACITY LIKE A SPONGE…

People who are overloaded can only process 20% of information. They lose 80% of their ability to hear, understand, and remember.

I can only hold so much “water”…

Material on this slide adapted from and used under license from Conner Partners. SpongeBob SquarePants © Viacom International, Inc.


CHANGE-‐RELATED OVERLOAD •  Sample symptoms:

–  Poor thinking and decision-‐making –  Low morale; negative emotions –  Errors and accidents –  Ineffective communication & teamwork –  Health & behavior issues

•  We can’t predict which speci]ic behaviors will emerge

•  We can predict the level of behavior and the impact on productivity



Project A

Project B

Project C

Project D

HOW DOES IT HAPPEN?

«

«


You


MULTIPLE, OVERLAPPING CHANGES

•  We’re doing HOW many changes??

•  How targets experience the impact of multiple changes

•  The effect of overload on initiative success



TOOLS FOR MANAGING OVERLOAD •  Getting an objective view of the portfolio:

measuring capacity and demand

Capacity"

•  Reducing demand ‾  Tough choices ‾  Effective implementation

•  Increasing capacity ‾  Building resilience ‾  Building synergy ‾  Building change knowledge



IMPORTANCE OF CAPACITY MANAGEMENT Risks of Not Managing

•  Productivity and quality suffer during transition.

•  Leadership loses credibility. •  Employees stop paying

attention to directives. •  There is weak and/or slower

progress of change. Initiatives are only installed, at best.

•  People become unproductive and all areas of work are impacted.

•  Morale problems surface or worsen.

BeneAits of Managing

•  Productivity and quality are stabilized during transformation.

•  Leaders are aligned and committed to supporting the changes.

•  Sponsors make timely, high-‐quality decisions.

•  Employees are focused on work aligned with strategic direction.

•  Employees are successful in change.

•  Initiatives are installed and realized.



THEORY IN PRACTICE: LOWE’S

•  Measuring capacity and demand –  Assessing the demand on our Store employees and key

corporate groups –  Asking employees about their “sponge space” –  Marrying the two up to inform how people will absorb

the portfolio of changes coming their way


REDUCING DEMAND

•  Tough Choices – Prioritizing initiatives;

incorporating capacity as a lens in the governance process

– Supporting effective implementation to conserve human energy •  Change execution training •  Change execution consulting


MAPPING DEMAND BY INITIATIVE PROGRAM Initiative / Project 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13 1 Program 1 Project 1 3.6 3.6 3.6 0 0 0 2 Program 1 Project 2 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.6 0 0 3 Program 1 Project 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 4 Program 2 Project 1 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 5 Program 2 Project 2 2.4 0 0 0 0 0 6 Program 3 Project 1 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 7 Program 3 Project 2 4 4 4 0 0 0 8 Program 3 Project 3 3.8 3.8 3.4 0 0 0 9 Program 3 Project 4 1.2 1.2 3.2 0 0 0

10 Program 4 Project 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 Program 4 Project 2 0 1.4 0 0 0 0 12 Program 4 Project 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Program 4 Project 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Program 4 Project 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Program 4 Project 6 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 16 Program 4 Project 7 0 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 17 Program 4 Project 8 0 9 9 9 9 9 18 Program 4 Project 9 0 2 2 2 0 0 19 Program 5 Project 1 1.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 20 Program 5 Project 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 21 Program 5 Project 3 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.8 22 Program 6 Project 1 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 23 Program 6 Project 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 24 Program 7 Project 1 0 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 25 Program 8 Project 1 3.6 2.6 3.6 0 0 0 26 Program 9 Project 1 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 27 Program 10 Project 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 28 Program 11 Project 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 29 Program 12 Project 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 30 Program 13 Project 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 Program 14 Project 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 32 Program 15 Project 1 0 0 1.8 0 0 0


ASSESSING “SPONGE SPACE” Assessment of Remaining Capacity Items Scale (1 to 10)

1.  How demanding is the day-‐to-‐day workload for this group (i.e., what it takes to meet the produc<vity and quality standards of the job)? 7

2. In addi<on to the daily workload, what level of impact is present due to major changes that are currently affec<ng this group? 8

3. What is the predicted level of impact on this group from changes that have not yet been announced but will affect the group? 7

4. To what extent are the various change ini<a<ves affec<ng this group integrated and coordinated so that people understand the big pictures and how each project is related to it? 5

5. How frequently do people in this group display symptoms of frustra<on, such as whining, complaining, and resentment? 9

6. How frequently do people in this group display symptoms of apathy, such as decreased mo<va<on, lack of involvement, and unwillingness to take risks? 8

7. How frequently do people in this group display symptoms of communica<on problems, such as lack of openness, decep<on, lying, blaming, and defensiveness? 6

8. How frequently do people in this group display symptoms of poor decision making, such as impulsiveness, inability to make decisions, and failure to consider all relevant informa<on? 7

9. How frequently do people in this group display symptoms of conflict, such as aggressive outbursts, poor teamwork, or failing to get along with one another? 5

10. How frequently do people in this group display symptoms of stress, such as illness, absenteeism, depression, and unwanted turnover? 3

11. How has the frequency of the behaviors related to frustra<on, apathy, communica<on problems, poor decision making, conflict, and stress changed during the past six months for this group? 8

12. How would you rate the overall performance of this group (its ability to meet organiza<onal produc<vity and quality standards)? 6

Overall Score 66


PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

49.2

75.4 72.6

48.2 49.6

39.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2Q12 3Q12 4Q12 1Q13 2Q13 3Q13

Dem

and

Poin

ts

Quarter

Capacity/Demand Chart


REDUCING DEMAND

•  Tough Choices – Prioritizing initiatives;

incorporating capacity as a lens in the governance process

– Supporting effective implementation to conserve human energy •  Change execution training •  Change execution consulting


INCREASING CAPACITY

•  Personal Resilience Questionnaire and workshops –  Embedded in leadership

development –  Delivered just-‐in-‐time for groups

experiencing change •  Synergy work for teams that

need to be high performance


GROUP RESILIENCE REPORT

DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION: MANAGING CHANGE OVERLOAD...2014 © ACMP All Rights Reserved | #acmp2014 11...

Documents

Transcript of DYSFUNCTION JUNCTION: MANAGING CHANGE OVERLOAD...2014 © ACMP All Rights Reserved | #acmp2014 11...