It is about 45 minutes in length and includes the entire PowerPoint. We will be posting some extracts from it on the website in the next month.

After our discussion they started asking a lot of interesting questions; How do we get folks to adopt a dramatic approach rather than a check box approach? Can HR be the drivers of the adoption? What role should business leaders play?

These are the right questions that need to be asked, and now they are turning the tide by facilitating business adoption through aligning business leaders to competency drivers that bring out optimal performance. Optimal performance is getting people focused on their strengths and designing functional areas so that the collection of individual skills are stronger than any single individual. In other words, creating synergy that drives the business based on KSAs that are motivated and dynamic rather than static.

Static drivers create status quo performance, and aren’t very measurable. Dynamic drivers are immediately impacted by the market, competitors, economy, etc. We can prepare for changes, ie: gas prices increasing, and have contingency plans. Building performance management systems that focus on dynamic business processes will allow an organization to have more dynamic focus on growing the business rather than maintaining it.

Does this make sense? Is it just easier to manage performance by static events? Can anyone share an example where the business drives Dynamic Performance Management?

Please let me know your thoughts.

- Nat Boughton

I was rear-ended a few weeks ago by a driver with State Farm insurance. We reported the accident from the scene and got a police report. State Farm took everything they needed from that initial report and the police report. They arranged for the appraisal, scheduled the repair at my car dealership, handled all the paperwork with the dealer, arranged for the rental and payment of a rental car, and paid every cent of everything. Their interactions with me were timely and professional.

Enterprise rented the car to me during the time the car was being repaired. They picked my up at the dealership when I dropped off my car, had the car ready when I showed up, called a couple time to make sure I was happy and that the service had been friendly, checked me in quickly and drove me back to the dealership when it was time to pick up my car. Their interactions were too warm and friendly from my perspective, I don’t need an emotional connection when I’m renting a car. The calls to check on my satisfaction both came a bad times during the business day and took too long. But they were consistently friendly and warm.

On Friday, I tried to order pizza from Pizza Huts website. My password wouldn’t work. I tried the option to resend my password, but after 30 minutes had never received my password – I even checked my spam folder. I tried to register again but I couldn’t because I had already used my email address. I tried to look up the menu, but couldn’t because the system said I was in the middle of placing an order. Their use of technology frustrated me.

So I called customer service. They could not reset my password or make sure it got sent to me. They had to forward the request to their web master. It took four days for my email and password to get to me. They knew this was a problem that people were experiencing. They couldn’t take my order either. They gave me the number of the local Pizza Hut to call. When I called, the person that took my order was obviously very busy and let me know that in the future I could place my order on-line. Their use of technology did not serve their business either.

State Farm clearly has their capabilities aligned with the customer’s needs and expectations at the Forward Edge. Their use of technology to integrate with their partners and keep track of everything was seamless. Enterprise also has their capabilities aligned with the Forward Edge. I wonder how many other people feel that the tone of the service reps on the phone calls were too invasive or took too much time with pleasantries. Pizza Hut has the trappings in place of serving the customer, but their capabilities are not aligned with my needs. I sure the ordering system saves them a lot of time and expense, but I may never order from Pizza Hut again.

Pizza hut made an unhappy customer and wasted a lot of their time because their website has a bug and their customer service reps don’t have access to the right tools. How well do you understand your capabilities at the Forward Edge? What do you have in place to understand the customer’s needs and satisfaction at the Forward Edge?

But there is a silver lining. My research and the collaborations regard the social aspects of project management. This is a area rich with opportunity to improve the performance of project teams and therefore the ability of organizations to execute on their strategy. I look forward to making for the lapse in activity by sharing insights in this area.

Is it that the Iraq War has made Europeans dislike North Americans, or is it that North Americans feel that they only have the right answers? I am not quite sure, and recently I have been involved in a Battle Royale. I am talking about a large software company where both sides have acted like school children on the playground. In this corner, North American sales team. And in this corner the Rest of World sales team. Let’s come out fighting fair.

But they aren’t fighting fair. Both teams have lied, cheated, and stolen opportunities from the other. Can this go on? What is the cause? Is it just about the wallet or is it about power? Is it that the compensation model is broken, or is that there is a lack of leadership or not enough negative consequences to change behavior?

The history between senior executives is literally hostile, and brokering an agreement can’t currently be done with both of them in the room. Getting to the VP’s and Directors has been difficult because of time constraints and the pressure being put on each team at the top.

Being the facilitator is exciting because our rule is simple – brutal, and I mean brutal honesty!! Defining the rules of engagement will take hard work and deep understanding of emotional intelligence and defining the social complexity and mastering collaborative communication (if it even exists).

We have now had two meetings where no punches have been thrown and we discussed the social complexity that exists and the organizational constraints that limit collaborative interaction. Getting everyone to talk about the obstacles is progress. 

I would be very interested in hearing what others have done in similar situations.

Fear deals with uncertainty about the future. A person may realize that there is potential to do things better than they are currently doing it. But if the way they are doing it isn’t getting them fired and they aren’t completely certain they can be at least as successful in a new way, they will resist the change until their fear is addressed.

The important thing about addressing fear is that fear is in the perspective of the person who is facing the change that matters, not the people initiating the change. Historically, we keep doing what we have always done because it kept us alive.

Embarrassment deals with admitting that the way we have done things isn’t the best way to do it. People have a very strong drive to be right and to be appreciated. When you point out that they aren’t doing things the best way, they tend to become defensive. You don’t understand how things got that way. It sure is easy to come in after the fact and point out the problems. You must think they are stupid if you think they don’t understand the flaws in how they do work.

Embarrassment is dealt with by letting people tell their story. Let them know it is clear that they made the best choices they could over time. Its ok that things got the way they are because the got the way they are.

Loss is much broader. People have made an investment into developing the competence that they have been rewarded for and that gives them influence. Any of these points can be an emotional sticking point, loss of investment, competence, rewards, or influence.

Explaining how things will be better for the business on the new .NET platform doesn’t help the guy who spent the last 20 years becoming the absolute expert in the COBOL application. Explaining the focusing benefits of social marketing techniques doesn’t make the sales person who spent the last 20 years developing relationship more valuable. The manager who has thrived in chaos and been rewarded for it will resist the effort to put in standard processes.

When we change the way we do things, we can’t replace the investment made by individuals in developing the competence that has led to reward and influence. We pull that out from under them. Loss is the most difficult challenge to deal with. We can commit to supporting a new investment, although it is difficult to replace 20 years of experience. People want to be valued. Try treating them with a great deal of respect and recognition for what they have accomplished. This will help with the transition, but won’t necessarily set them up for a complimentary level of success in the new way of things.

The bottom line is that overcoming resistance to change is critical to the success of most strategic changes. Typical change management approaches teach us to communicate, communicate, and communication again. But, notice how of the sources of resistance are all at a personal level. Explaining how the change will benefit the business, or the manager, or even the customer isn’t sufficient.

Next time you are facing resistance to change, don’t push – listen. The person resisting understands the benefit to the business. It is fear, embarrassment, or loss that is motivating the resistance. Often it is a combination. Spending time understanding and addressing resistance at its root may seem like an unneccassary investment. However, the investment is almost always less than the cost of the resistance itself.