We are all witnesses and participants in the English expression: “May you live in interesting times.”

Eighteen months ago, who could have anticipated the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which brought an immediate shift for many people to work remotely. During this time, organizations hired many people who had not yet stepped into the office building of their new employer. Also, many new hires have not yet met their manager or coworkers – except through virtual meetings. As a result, many people are eager to get back to the office, meet new and returning coworkers, and reconnect with the aspects of organizational culture that come alive through onsite and in-person interactions.

In contrast, while leaders are preparing to bring people back to the office under a new hybrid onsite/remote model, many people have reservations about returning. These employees voice concerns that they should be able to continue to work remotely and not be required to give up the flexibility and work/life balance they gained over the past 18 months.

To add to this challenge, people are changing jobs at a rate never seen before. According to US Labor statistics, four million people quit their jobs in July – and more are considering changing jobs with record low unemployment at 5.2% in September. Plus, LinkedIn reported that the number of remote jobs posted on their site increased 8.5 times compared with pre-pandemic.

All these dynamics are creating what is known as the “hybrid paradox” amid the “great reshuffle.”

As people seek remote work and greater flexibility, how can leaders guide their teams through the turbulence of the interesting times we live and work? We believe it’s through change management.

On October 27^th, I will host a webinar with BrainStorm, a provider of technology solutions that help increase user adoption. Here is what you’ll learn:

• How to accelerate and revitalize new-hire onboarding
• How to improve access to training and skills development
• How to invest in new technologies that support business operations
• Tips for deploying employee experience analytics

Lately, I hear and read multiple news reports online and in my newsfeed about the challenges and decisions leaders and employees face about the pending “return-to-office.” What is your situation, and what is your level of readiness?

• Is your organization prepared for people to return to the office?
• Do you receive consistent messages from your leadership?
• Have you received clear policies and guidelines about the transition and if/when you and your team will go back onsite?
• Are leaders engaging their people to understand their desires and concerns about returning to the office?

If you are not able to respond to these questions with a confident “Yes!” you are not alone. Research confirms that many leaders are unsure about how and when to bring people back to the office. Also, many employees have concerns about their return to the office and expect to work differently in the post-pandemic world.

Sources: 1. McKinsey, 2021, 2. Robert Half, 2021, 3. LinkedIn, 2021, 4. Gallup, 2012 

These startling statistics underscore the need for leaders to develop and deliver a clear and well-planned return-to-office strategy.

Based on our expertise guiding leaders through significant organizational change, we identified the following top six outcomes of a successful return-to-work engagement:

1. Senior leaders and key stakeholders are aligned on strategy and engaged in the process. A successful return-to-office engagement starts with executives across the organizations who represent functional areas such as HR, IT, Facilities, and Legal. These leaders come together to determine who will lead the effort, which stakeholders need to be involved in decision-making, what policies and guidelines need to be in place, and the degree of employee feedback desired to shape decisions.
2. Executives are prepared to make crucial decisions about relevant policies and guidelines. Executives explore and implement policies and guidelines in four key areas:
   • Onsite or Hybrid Return-to-Office Strategy: Phasing and timing of the transition, treatment of vendors and visitors, and criteria for success
   • Physical Occupation of Space: Use and etiquette of shared space, investment in alternative workspaces and equipment, and vaccination requirements
   • Transition Back to the Office: Roles that require onsite work, how to prioritize groups to return onsite and/or organize hybrid work schedules
   • Engagement and Visibility: Ensure messages are clear and consistent, success criteria are measured, and employee sentiment is tracked
3. Managers have clear guidance for implementing policies. After executives have consulted with their leadership teams and developed relevant policies and guidelines, executives communicate with managers about parameters to implement return-to-office policies.
4. Managers are prepared to lead their teams; grounded in consistency but tailored to their needs. With clear guidance on policies from executives, managers apply the policies and guidelines while adjusting to local requirements that may include leading in a hybrid environment.
5. Employees are engaged and, therefore, more optimistic about the return-to-office strategy. Research finds that business units in the top quartile of productivity attribute 21% of that productivity to employee engagement Gallup). Thus, as managers solicit employee input about their needs and communicate decisions on the return-to-office strategy, employees will be more engaged in the process and supportive of the outcomes because leaders listened and considered their needs.
6. Employee anxiety, fear, and resistance are reduced. As highlighted in the recent research studies earlier, the vast majority of employees do not want to return to the office full time (and will look for other jobs if required), many are burned out, and most have not received clear communications about what to expect. These statistics suggest that employees feel anxious, afraid, and will resist a return to the office. Thus, leaders must understand and address employees’ needs and concerns when developing policies and guidelines. The degree to which employees are engaged in decision making (e.g., developing the etiquette for shared spaces) will help also help reduce anxiety and turnover that can disrupt productivity.

The cumulative effect of these six outcomes will be a successful transition back to the office, whether fully onsite or a hybrid model, with an engaged and productive workforce.

To help our clients achieve these outcomes, we meet with key leaders across the organization to assess their current return-to-office policies and their readiness for the change. To increase employee engagement and gain insights into employee concerns and readiness, we survey employees to help leaders better formulate their onsite/hybrid strategy. Next, we facilitate workshops to identify and close gaps in return-to-office policies and guidelines. Finally, with participation from leaders and employees, we develop, implement, and help deliver plans that reduce fear and resistance, retain trust and confidence in leaders, and maintain employee productivity and customer service.

If you would like to discuss how we can assist your organization’s transition back to the office, please reach out to your Perficient contact or email me at Mike.Willis@perficient.com.

During the past year, leaders have faced numerous challenges while leading their organizations through changes as a result of the pandemic, unrest, and uncertainty. A key challenge for organizations has been learning to effectively and efficiently collaborate in a virtual workplace where all members work together in unison. Rowing, also known as Crew, is a competitive sport that requires a higher degree of individuals working together as a team than in any other sport.

Consider the following example of nine students from the University of Washington to learn how you can improve the levels of teamwork and collaboration to lead change in your organization. During the depths of the Great Depression in 1936, an obscure rowing team from the University of Washington traveled to Germany to participate in the Olympic Games. The nine “boys” came from small mining and lumber towns who donated bits of money so the team could travel to Berlin.

Upon their arrival in Germany, every aspect of the competition seemed stacked against them. Yet, something happened in the race, a term used by those in the sport of rowing as “swing”.

Read the description below based on the book The Boys in the Boat by Daniel James Brown:

There is a thing that sometimes happens that is hard to achieve and hard to define. It’s called “swing.” It happens only when all are rowing in such perfect unison that not a single action is out of sync.

Rowers must rein in their fierce independence and at the same time hold true to their individual capabilities. Races are not won by clones. Good crews are good blends – someone to lead the charge, someone to hold something in reserve, someone to fight the fight, someone to make peace. No rower is more valuable than another, all are assets to the boat, but if they are to row well together, each must adjust to the needs and capabilities of the others – the shorter-armed person reaching a little farther, the longer-armed person pulling in just a bit.

Differences can be turned to advantage instead of disadvantage. Only then will it feel as if the boat is moving on its own. Only then does pain entirely give way to exultation. Good “swing” feels like poetry.

Recently, I worked on two project teams where we achieved a degree of swing. Like the rowing team, we had a good blend of knowledge and experience. Everyone was valued and understood how their role fit into the team successfully achieving our goal. During the final week of the project, it was as if we were all rowing together in perfect unison with each stroke of our oars as we sprinted to the finish.

Many years after this young rowing team won gold at the 1936 Olympics, Joe Rantz, a member of the team and now in his mid-seventies, was interviewed by Brown. In the interview, Rantz recalled that the “boat” made a vital difference in the team’s ability to achieve “swing”. Initially, Brown assumed Rantz was only referring to the literal boat in which he and his teammates competed. However, Brown quickly realized that to Rantz, the “boat” also symbolized the “shared experience” of rowing with friends “bound together forever by pride and respect and love”. Thus, one of the most important factors to experience swing is to reach high levels of teamwork through trust and personal connections with others.

While the past year has prevented us from physically sitting next to teammates in our “boats”, we have learned to collaborate, communicate, and connect through electronic and virtual methods. These changes can add to our “shared experience” and further bind us together as a team as we adapt and adopt to new ways of working together.

The account of how the nine members of the 1936 Olympic rowing team formed a strong team, achieved swing, and won the gold is a remarkable and inspiring story. How has your team achieved swing this year by achieving unity, trust, and personal connections while working through the hardships and uncertainty?

Source: Daniel James Brown, The Boys in the Boat: Nine Americans and Their Epic Quest for Gold at the 1936 Berlin Olympics (2013), 161, 179.

Water is a precious commodity that gives life to plants – just like the way that information and knowledge helps people learn and adapt during times of organizational change. The methods used to share and disseminate information and knowledge throughout the organization play a vital role in the success of the change initiative. If not planned and delivered, the vital information – like water needed by thirsty plants – gets washed away and wasted. In this post, I share three ways that wise leaders can better move their key messages of change throughout the organization and reach the end of each row.

Method 1: Water sprinklers.

Sprinklers move water that is pressurized through pipes, and out through sprinkler heads. The water droplets are sprayed with a fine mist across a large distance into the air and down to the ground. Thus, everything on the ground, including weeds, receive water.

From an OCM perspective, this method of watering represents messages sent from senior leaders out to a broad audience. These messages can be via email or town hall and all-hands meetings. People hear high-level information that applies to the organization at a general level and they see their leaders’ vocal and visible commitment to the change.

Method 2: Surface or flood irrigation.

Farmers often water crops by flood or surface irrigation. Rows are flooded with water siphoned from a canal and distributed over the soil surface by gravity. Flood irrigation is one of the most common forms of irrigation throughout the world. It has remained virtually unchanged for thousands of years. (1) While this method requires very little equipment or technology, farmers need an abundant source of water.

From an OCM perspective, surface or flood irrigation represents the need to saturate people with information. Each day, we are all bombarded with many messages and distractions in the workplace. Getting people to hear, recognize, and remember your message can be a challenge.

The famous Rule of 7 reminds us that people need to see or hear your message seven times before they take action. Wise change leaders will plan and orchestrate a coordinated communication campaign that includes immersive messages. This includes posters, digital signage, corporate intranets, project dashboards and timelines, tent cards, desk drops, and postcards. Live one-on-one and group discussions about the change and how the change makes us feel and will benefit us is where the rubber meets the road.

Method 3: Dripline.

Drip irrigation consists of a network of tubes and values throughout the field of crops. This method of irrigation is more efficient because of reduced waste. The root of the plant receives water directly, and reduced water evaporation.

From an OCM perspective, drip irrigation represents key messages that leaders share with their direct reports through one-on-one coaching discussions. These formal and informal communications are where the rubber meets the road. Conversations between leaders and employees are more effective than other methods. Open and tailored discusses the impacts, concerns, and benefits employees experience.

Conclusion

This blog outlined three methods to bring water to grow crops as an analogy of different methods leaders can use to share information and help their people thrive and adapt during times of change. Each method has advantages depending on the different climates, resources, and ground conditions. Just like the different functions and geographic regions of your organization.

Regardless of the methods used, farmers and leaders face a common challenge. Ensure the water moves from the source down through the channels to reach the end of the row. What strategies and tactics do you find to be most effective for communicating change?

Read more about organizational change management here.

On December 16, 1675, scientists of the Royal Society gathered to hear Isaac Newton’s new latest theory on the properties of light. Robert Hooke, the Society’s Curator of Experiments was in the audience and proclaimed that the essence of Newton’s paper was already captured in Hooke’s published book and that Newton would benefit from additional experiments to build upon Hooke’s previously published conclusions. As a result, Hooke and Newton became engaged in a long correspondence and one of most significant collaborations in the history of science.

After drawing upon earlier experiments from Hooke and Rene Descartes, Newton arrived at a new hypothesis on the refraction of light particles. Newton’s discoveries were groundbreaking and surpassed Hooke’s own accomplishments. As a result, Hooke became appreciative and complementary of Newton’s new contributions. In return, Newton acknowledged the value of their scientific discussions that came from the pioneering work of Descartes and Hooke. To show his gratitude, Newton stated, “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”(1)

While this story is a great metaphor for the advancement of scientific discovery, this story also reminds me of the importance of mentoring.

Over 30 years ago, Michael Lombardo and Robert Eichinger surveyed nearly 200 executives and asked them to report how they learned, grew, and changed over the course of their careers. What the researchers learned from this study became known as the 70-20-10 rule and can be a classic guideline for the ratio of activities to develop leaders.(2)

• 70% Challenging work assignments
• 20% Developmental relationships
• 10% Formal coursework and training

Mentoring is one of the developmental relationships that helps people learn and succeed in their careers. People often seek out a mentor for advice and wisdom. Yet, a mentor’s ability to teach and influence others is greater when the emerging leader can study and work closely with their mentor while also observing the mentor’s behavior and receiving feedback. Thus, similar to the estimate that 90% of communication is non-verbal, most of mentoring is “caught not taught”.(3)

While mentoring activities may only represent 20% of a person’s overall development in their career, this ratio can largely influence on how the person fulfills the larger 70% of development activities that come from work assignments. For example, mentors see and believe in the potential of the people they mentor. Also, mentors can use their influence to open doors of opportunity so that the people they mentor can have new (and often uncomfortable) work assignments to help the people stretch and grow in their careers. Finally, effective mentors coach and support people through these new and uncomfortable assignments to help them overcome the challenges and become a more capable leader from the experience.

In closing, if you serve in the role of a mentor, don’t underestimate the lasting imprint you can have on the people who look to you as a role model. Conversely, if you are looking for ways to grow and advance in your career, look beyond the traditional 10% developmental activities found in formal classroom training opportunities. Find ways to leverage the 20% ratio by building a formal or informal mentoring relationship with others who can help you stretch and grow.

Mentoring is a win/win activity because both parties find purpose and receive rewards. Just as Newton and Hooke demonstrated in their collaboration and correspondence as scientists, all progress is built on the triumphs of others. Hence, we all succeed when we recognize how the contributions of others have contributed to our own achievements and we see further by standing on the shoulders of giants.

Are you “All In” with Microsoft Teams? This phrase has become a common question we ask ourselves and others in today’s business vernacular. Years ago, the phrase “All In” was only used by people playing poker when they would bet all their chips on a single hand of cards. Today, the phrase is used to show that we are enthusiastic and fully committed to some course of action.

By declaring we are “All In”, we tell others that we choose to live boldly! Leaders often make this decisive declaration at a dramatic turning point in an effort to provide instant and unambiguous resolution when the groups they lead reach the cross roads of an important organizational change initiative.

Two Types of Leaders

This blog post is for two types of leaders. The first type of leader is facing the question of what to do when Microsoft retires Skype for Business in the near future. The second type of leader has already made the technical change to Teams, but faces the question of how to get people to change their behavior and culture and collaborate in new and different ways. If you fit either of these categories, read on.

The answer for both types of leaders is to be “All In” and take bold steps to lead the enablement and adoption of Microsoft Teams as the enterprise-wide hub for all teamwork.

Business Case for Microsoft Teams

In April 2019, Forrester published a report that measured the total economic impact and potential return on investment (ROI) organizations may realize by adopting Microsoft Teams. Based on interviews and survey data from 260 organizations, Forrester provided quantifiable evidence on how Teams can help leaders increase productivity, save time, and lower costs. For a full copy of the report, click here.

Teams increases productivity and improves customer experiences

• 80% of leaders reported that the accessibility features in Teams made their organization more productive.
• 83% of leaders reported that Teams helped their organization improve customer experiences.

Teams saves time

• Employees save 1.1 to 8.0 hours per week (varies by role) by having all solutions in one place for improved collaboration and information sharing as well a more efficient meetings
• Information workers save 4 hours per week from improved collaboration and information sharing
• First-line workers save 45 minutes per week collaborating with colleagues
• Employees save 24 minutes per day working with outside organizations
• Employees reduced time in meetings each week by 18.9%
• Information workers save 15 minutes per day by avoiding switching between applications

Teams reduces costs

• Leaders estimate a cost savings of $648K over three years from a reduction in communication and collaboration solutions
• Estimated savings of 150 overnight trips replaced by online meetings over three years
• $1.4M over three years of reduced costs associated with hiring and onboarding new employees

These improvements in productivity, time savings, and reductions in costs can really add up day after day and year after year when every leader and employee in your organization go “All In” with Teams.

Ready to Learn More?

To learn more how organizational change management can support the successful migration to and adoption of Microsoft Teams, join us at one of the events below:

• Wednesday, October 23, 2019
  Microsoft Teams and Adoption Change Management Summit (Irvine, California)
  Click to Register
• Thursday, November 14, 2019
  Driving Office 365 and Microsoft Teams User Adoption: What you should know before embarking on your implementation (Webinar)
  Click to Register

Also, request a copy below of The Essential Guide to Microsoft Teams End-User Engagement. This guide outlines 10 best practices to help you successfully launch Teams in your organization.

Is it possible to serve two masters? According to ancient wisdom, we can only serve one master at a time. Otherwise, we will hate one and love the other. However, my manager often reminds me that by the nature of our work as external consultants in a publicly traded company, we must serve two masters.

Our first master is our clients who hire us to guide and advise them on mission critical projects. By contract, we are obligated to complete specific deliverables within a set schedule and budget while ensuring high client satisfaction. During these projects, challenges may arise unexpectedly that put the organizational readiness for change, timeline, budget, or client satisfaction at risk. At these critical points, we must be flexible and creative to find workable solutions.

Our second master is our shareholders, as represented by Wall Street. Our shareholders and investors expect us to grow and repeatedly meet and exceed our quarterly financial goals. Confidence in our company increases when we meet our goals or falls when we fall short.

To help me manage between these and other “dual master” scenarios, I apply a problem management framework, known as Polarity Management, that I learned in graduate school from Barry Johnson.  In this article, I give an introduction to the Polarity Management and how the model can help leaders face wicked problems and effectively lead organizational change. To begin, let’s start with a simple question:

Which is more important when breathing – to inhale or exhale?  The clear and obvious answer to this question is they are both important. This question cannot be answered through an “either/or” answer, but instead requires an “and” answer.

As illustrated in the chart below, if we focus exclusively on the benefits of inhaling, we begin to experience negative downsides – the need to clean out Carbon Dioxide. In contrast, if we focus exclusively on the benefits of exhaling, we begin to experience a different set of negative downsides – the need for Oxygen. Thus, while inhaling and exhaling may appear to be polar opposites, they are interdependent pairs that must work together to sustain life.

Leaders frequently view business problems as dichotomies as they struggle to make an either/or decision with the belief they will solve the problem. Consider these dilemmas we frequently face:

• Results vs People
• Decentralize vs Centralize
• Career vs Family
• Relationships vs Task
• Change vs Stability

The solution to these and many other scenarios is to manage the polarities rather attempt to solve them by exclusively focusing on one to the neglect of the other.

Consider this example: We know that leaders are responsible to achieve results, yet caring for people’s needs is often identified as the opposite pole to achieve business results. There are many important benefits and positive outcomes that come from focusing on each pole. However, we all can list negative outcomes that result when we over focus on one pole and neglect the other pole. Thus, both pairs are important and interdependent on each other.

Because these polarities exist in many aspects of organizational life, leaders must become adept at moving themselves and their teams through these poles. The goal for leaders should be to develop action steps to keep the tension between the poles in check and keep their organizations in the upper half of the four quadrants. This will allow them to gain the benefits and positive results of both poles.

When leaders recognize the early warning signs that they are starting to dip into the lower half of the four quadrants and experience the downsides of the poles, they should switch to their action plans to pull them back up to the benefits quadrants of the opposite pole. This will help them prevent a deep dive into the negative results of over focusing on only one pole.

Polarity Management is a powerful tool to reframe many perplexing challenges to leading organizations. This article has only scratched the surface, and there is much more that can be learned and put into practice. By plotting wicked problems on this framework, leaders will be more effective as they break the tug-of-war mindset found in either/or thinking and embrace the process to manage the polarity by valuing both poles.

How have you benefited from “and/both” thinking and the Polarity Management framework?

On July 16, 1969, the massive Saturn V rocket lifted off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to deliver the astronauts of Apollo 11 to the moon for the first lunar landing. In a few weeks, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of this historic event.

During liftoff from the launch pad, the rocket’s five F-1 rocket engines ignited and produced 7.5 million pounds of thrust – equivalent to 160 million horsepower. I marvel at the tremendous amount of energy and force required to push the astronauts up and above the gravitational pull of the earth, into space, and to their goal of landing on the moon. From physics, we know that the gravitational pull varies by planet: Earth: 9.8 m/s2 (meters per second squared), Moon: 1.62 m/s2, Mars: 3.7 m/s2, and the Sun: 274 m/s2. Thus, the larger the mass and density of the planet, the greater the gravitational pull.

Organizations often have their own gravitational pull as people seek to avoid change and maintain the status quo. This often invisible force can lead to complacency and make leading large-scale change more difficult for leaders. John Kotter, an author and researcher of organizational change, made this warning to leaders: Never underestimate the magnitude of the forces that reinforce complacency and that help maintain the status quo. This blog post explores the sources of complacency in organizations and how leaders can raise urgency to better achieve their own moonshot change initiatives.

Sources of Complacency
Complacency towards organizational change exists for many reasons. According to Kotter, some sources of complacency include the absence of a major and visible crisis, an abundance of visible resources, low overall performance standards, an avoidance of real issues through low candor and low confrontation, and organizational structures that focus employees on narrow functional goals.

Complacent organizations have a culture of artificial harmony where people tend to over rely on internal sources for performance feedback and measurements and over focus on narrow functional goals at the expense of enterprise-wide goals. These processes and practices help to ensure the status quo remains in place.

How to Raise Urgency Levels
So how can leaders overcome the gravitational pull of complacency that weighs their organizations down and light a fire of urgency to change? According to Kotter, creating a strong sense of urgency usually calls for bold or even risky actions. Bold actions that reduce complacency may take the form of creating a crisis through the emergence of a close competitor, setting strategic targets so high they cannot be reached through current business as usual practices, and eliminating obvious examples of excess.

For a short case study of taking bold steps to create urgency, consider the United States Apollo space program. Eight years before astronauts from Apollo 11 walked on the Moon, Americans wrestled with the perception that we were losing the Space Race. The Soviet Union had already launched Sputnik 1, the first artificial satellite four years earlier, and a Russian cosmonaut had already become the first man in space.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy spoke to a crowd of 40,000 people at Rice University in Houston, Texas. His goal was to persuade the crowd to support the Apollo program – the national effort to land a man on the Moon. His powerful speech was called for bold steps and included the now famous tagline “we choose to go to the Moon”. Kennedy spoke about space as the new frontier, a sense of urgency, and American’s freedom to choose their destiny. The previous year, Kennedy met with Congress and proposed that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth”.

President Kennedy’s bold plan carried many risks. The plan to send astronauts into space and land on the Moon was very expensive and unproven for the United States. Plus, polls showed that 58% of Americans were opposed to the Apollo program. Notwithstanding the risks and costs, Kennedy’s bold plan won support, brought the United States out of complacency, and successfully reached his goal seven years after his speech at Rice University.

Conclusion
This example from history illustrates how Kennedy applied specific tactics to raise the urgency level and overcome complacency that enabled the United States to surpass our competitors and become a leader in space exploration. These tactics included creating a crisis by leveraging the perception that the United States was behind our competitors in the Space Race. Also, he set a shocking and high target to travel to the Moon and back by the end of the decade. These are just a few of the bold and risky steps that leaders should follow to raise the urgency level and overcome the gravitational pull of complacency in their organizations.

Sources:
Leading Change by John P. Kotter (1996) HBS Press
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_choose_to_go_to_the_Moon
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-horsepower-and-torque-of-the-Saturn-V-rocket
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_359a.html

The Emergence of the Ubiquitous Electric Scooter
I discovered a new way to get around the streets of San Diego a few months ago. While on vacation with my family, I rented and rode my first electric scooter (also known as an e-scooter). If you live or work in an urban downtown area, you have probably seen a collection of e-scooters parked on the sidewalk and scattered around street corners. Sometimes these scooters are knocked over and block your path. I was intrigued by this new mode of transportation and did some research to learn more about this trend.

About two years ago, a few scooter startups opened for business and silently placed their scooters throughout the streets of cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica, California. Without a big marketing campaign, people quickly discovered how easily they could download an app, rent, and ride a scooter as long as they wanted. People could leave the scooter parked at any location without a requirement to return the scooter to the original point of rental.

Early adopters welcomed scooters as a new form of micro-transit, a solution to less pollution and fewer cars on the road. This demographic saw scooters as the best way to complete the “last mile” of their daily commute after already using transportation like bus and rail.

However, opposition emerged almost as quickly as the scooter revolution appeared on street corners. The electric scooters descended on cities without any permits or permission. People who rode scooters often rode on sidewalks and disregarded traffic rules which created hazards to the rider and pedestrians. In addition, scooters were often left parked or lying on streets which blocked foot traffic and looked junky.

In response, city governments and citizens in cities like San Francisco and Santa Monica California complained loudly and temporarily banned scooters. They demanded that cities take the time to develop and approve city ordinances that would regulate scooters and restore order in the streets and sidewalks for pedestrian and rider. As a result, city governments and a small number of scooter companies worked together and reached an agreement on how and where scooters would be allowed to operate. These changes brought about positive and sustainable improvements and today scooter riders, city governments, and pedestrians find greater harmony in sharing their city streets.

Parallels with Leading Effective Organizational Change
Sometimes, leaders in organizations attempt to introduce a disruptive change on employees with no (or very little) planning, communication, or involvement of those who will be impacted by the change. As a result, people are left unaware and wondering what just happened and why. When organizational change is silently “dropped off overnight and left on street corners” with no explanation, people may temporarily “test drive the change”, but then carelessly discard the change when they run into problems.
People often easily give up on a change when leaders have not yet clearly defined or communicated how the change aligns with overall culture, strategy, and daily processes. Also, people will often disregard a change when they do not feel any ownership in the successful outcome of the change.

Conclusion
From this experiment, scooter companies learned they are better off in the long run to ask permission than forgiveness when bringing their new form of micro-transportation to busy streets and urban cities. So too, wise organizational leaders will involve people early that will be impacted by the change and have a stake in the successful outcome of the change. These actions will allow leaders to gather important information, create buy in for the change, and better ensure the change can be designed and implemented to meet the needs and interests of groups impacted by the change.

What are the first thoughts that come to your mind when you hear the title of “influencer”? For people active on social media, an influencer is someone who has established credibility, a large audience, and the ability to influence others by virtue of their trustworthiness and authenticity (1). The influencer phenomenon has become so big on social media that influencers are often organized across a spectrum based on the number of people that follow them (2)(4).

The chart below describes the different points on the spectrum based on the number of followers and common characteristics of the influencer/follower relationship.

Social Media Influencer Spectrum

For example, a mega-influencer with over a million followers may enjoy celebrity status and receive large financial rewards (up to $1M) from sponsors for each social media post that promotes a product or campaign. However, the influencer/follower relationship is distant at this level with very little engagement between the two parties which decreases the actual influence of a mega-influencer.

In contrast a nano influencer has less than 1,000 followers, but often maintains more influence. This increased influence comes from an influencer/follower relationship that is more engaged and sustained over the long-term. Also, the influencer is often local to the follower’s community.

From my experience, the same principles that influence someone to follow another person’s attitudes and behavior on social media can also apply when leading people to learn and adopt new attitudes and behaviors. Influencers in both realms need credibility, an audience, trust, and authenticity. The difference between the two scenarios is that leaders of organizational change need influencers/follower relationships at all four levels of the spectrum and the influencers need to be aligned around the same vision and work in concert to reach that vision.

Organizational Change Influencer Spectrum

When organizations undertake large-scale change initiatives, the change is led by leaders at the enterprise and business unit levels of the organization. At these levels, leaders carry a high amount of influence, but often lack the ability to form close relationships and engage closely with employees at the local front line levels of the organization. For this reason, successful organizational change also requires leaders with influence at the micro and nano levels to guide people through the change.

Department and work group leaders work with employees on a daily basis, create leader/employee engagement, and build long-term relationships. By virtue of their work at the micro and nano levels, these leaders have greater influence because they have earned employees’ trust and are better able to relate to the employees and communicate the impacts and benefits the change will bring.

One Final Comparison and Parallel:
Experts in social media and influencer marketing know that people are more likely to be influenced by the opinions of peers – who they trust – before they make a purchasing decision. Consider these research statistics (3)(4):
• 70% of people seek the opinions of others before making a decision to buy goods and services
• 72% of those who seek opinions from others seek opinions from their own social media contacts
• 82% of people who receive a recommendation from a micro influencer for a purchase follow through on that recommendation

Thus, I believe that people are creatures of habit and they will continue to look to others – especially their peers – before taking action. This principle is consistent whether people looks to others before making a decision to purchase a new product or a decision to embrace a change that will transform how they work. As a result, wise leaders will build a spectrum influencers at the mega, macro, micro, and nano levels to guide people to adopt and sustain their organizational change initiatives.

Sources:
1. http://influenceranalysis.com/what-is-an-influencer/
2. https://www.cmswire.com/digital-marketing/social-media-influencers-mega-macro-micro-or-nano/
3. http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/social-and-lifestyle/seven-in-10-americans-seek-out-opinions-before-making-purchases
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2016/07/18/theres-nothing-micro-about-the-power-of-micro-influencers/#4e68a243539a

Living in the great state of Arizona, I see people travel frequently between Phoenix and Southern California. According to the map app on my phone, the California border is only 3 hours away if I drive west on Interstate 10. Plus, my phone gives me written and audio turn-by-turn instructions with a detailed map of the road I will travel. This clarity and simplicity is available to everyone today with a web-enabled mobile device. However, getting an accurate map and directions to California was not always so easy.

During the 16^th and 17^th century, many people believed that California was an island. This belief was established because the Baja peninsula extends roughly 1,000 miles south from today’s state of California. Thus, Spanish explorers concluded in the early 1600s that California was cut off from the mainland. Click the image below to enlarge.

Throughout the 1600s, European countries differed on whether California was or was not an island. By 1622, a British mathematician published an influential article with a map of California as an island, but Dutch cartographers (people who produce maps) continued to print maps with California as a peninsula. By 1638, all European cartographers supported the island theory and Nicolas Sanson, geographer to the King of France, confirmed in 1650 that California should be depicted as an island on all maps.

In 1705, Eusebio Kino, a Jesuit priest, led an overland expedition across the Sea of Cortez and wrote a report with a map that cast serious doubt on the belief that California was an island. After continued exploration, King Ferdinand VI of Spain issued a decree in 1747 stating that California was officially not an island. Yet, despite this decree, cartographers did not completely abandon this belief for another century.  (1)

While early explorers had difficulty creating geographical maps, each of us often struggle today to create accurate mental maps. These maps – also known as mental models – represent images, assumptions, and stories of ourselves, organizations, and every aspect of the world. These mental maps exist in our long-term memory and at the sub-conscious level. As a result, our maps are often untested and unexamined and influence our short-term perceptions and everyday reasoning.

The challenge with following these maps is that our world constantly changes. What customers want, what competitors will do, how the marketplace will evolve, and what technology will exist continues to change and evolve. So how can you recognize and surface your mental maps to examine and determine when your maps become outdated?

I recommend the Ladder of Influence and the ORJI Model as two tools to help you expose and test your mental maps. These tools were developed and refined by some of the most respected leaders in the field of organizational change including Ed Schein, Chris Argyris, Peter Senge, and Rick Ross.

• Ladder of Inference – Describes a common mental ladder that we climb starting with observable data and experiences at the first rung and then we climb to translate that data into meaning, assumptions, conclusions, beliefs, and actions based on the beliefs. Because the original data is selective and based on observations, our ending actions may be based on misguided beliefs.
• ORJI Model – This acronym is formed by the steps of Observation, Reaction, Judgement, and Intervention which takes place in our mind and affects our behavior. We make an observation, react emotionally to that observation, analyze and make a judgement based on the observation and feelings and finally intervene by taking some action.

In our daily fast-paced work we nearly always race from observation up to action in a split second without recognizing our reaction or the meaning we place on the data we observe. This happens because mental maps have such a strong influence on how we think and act. However, wise leaders will walk down the rungs of the ladder and revisit the initial observation step to determine if their actions and mental maps are outdated and based on misguided beliefs.

So how does this apply to leading change? When our organizations experience transformational change, we must learn new ways of thinking, communicating, and working. To adopt these changes requires more awareness, reflection, and openness to rewrite our mental maps. Otherwise, we become defensive towards the change, hold on to our outdated mental maps, and miss the opportunity grow and progress.

So next time you face organizational change, remember the map of California and avoid the same mistakes made by the early European explorers. Remember how we often make observations based on incomplete data that we form into assumptions and how those conclusions become beliefs and actions from inaccurate maps. Instead, slow down and walk down the Ladder of Inference and ORJI model to help your organization rewrite your mental maps and chart your new course.

Sources:

• https://www.wired.com/2014/04/maps-california-island/
• Overcoming Organizational Defenses – Facilitating Learning by Chris Argyris
• Process Consultation Revisited by Ed Schein
• Fifth Discipline Fieldbook by Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts, Richard Ross, and Bryan Smith
• https://purl.stanford.edu/sy409bk9698
• https://purl.stanford.edu/cb303zr7917
• https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/zb871zd0767
• https://west.stanford.edu/news/island-anything-surrounded-difference-thoughts-maps-and-history

How do communications and influence flow through your organization? The most obvious and visible method is through formal channels. Leaders in corporate or business-line roles receive information from executives and these leaders cascade the information down the hierarchy through predictable channels like email and town hall and group meetings. The path of these communications can be easily traced down through the lines and boxes of an organization chart. However, communication and influence that flows through informal networks can also be more subtle and less visible. These networks form through a web of relationships founded on many reasons. While people may sit far apart on the formal organization chart, some of these people may be close friends and easily influence each other because they carpool together, worked together in the same department years ago, their kids attend the same school, play golf every Saturday, belong to the same extended family – and the list of possible connections goes on.

While organization charts show the formal structure of hierarchy, communication, and influence, leaders often lack a map of the informal networks in their organization. These maps can show who we trust, who we seek out for advice, and who comes to us for advice. A map that shows these connections would not only look different from the formal organization chart, but also be very useful when developing an organizational change plan.

As a consultant, I have conducted social network analysis studies with operations and senior leadership teams. After leaders and employees complete a short survey, I generate network maps with the help of network mapping software. As I share the results, leaders are often surprised by two common patterns that emerge. First, network maps identify people who serve as “brokers”. Employees in the broker role are often very influential and serve as a bridge between subgroups within network. The broker role is represented in blue in the chart below.

Brokers have relationships with different subgroups that help them position themselves to knit together an entire network and make these interactions as the most efficient means to gather and share information.  According to research, brokers often have the best perspective on what aspects of a change will work across different subgroups. Also, brokers have a high degree of ground-level credibility with people from different functions, locations, or roles. Thus, leaders should seek out brokers in their organization to serve as early adopters and advocates for change. (1) In the examples above, Thompson works in R&D in a non-leadership role, but Lui and Taylor in Sales and Corporate HQ have trust and positive relationships with Thompson that enable Thompson to bridge the two teams where the trust and relationship between the leaders of these three teams is not sufficiently strong enough.

The second important pattern to emerge is people in the “connector” role as represented in green in the above chart. Similar to the broker role, connectors are influential within informal networks because they are considered the “go-to” people for information, advice, and insights. (2) Connectors often have long tenure with the organization and have extensive knowledge of and relationships within the organization. In the examples above, Lui and Taylor are not formal leaders, but considered the go-to people by their coworkers. Sanchez is not in a formal leadership role, but considered a trusted advisor to Olson the executive. These people play an important role in connecting others with advice and answers to make decisions.

Bottom Line: Brokers and connectors are not formal titles or positions in an organization chart. However, these roles emerge in organizations in order for people to get their work done – often outside the lines and boxes of the formal organizational structure. When leading organizational change, leaders who invest the time and energy to map and understand their informal networks and collaborative relationships before starting their change initiative will find hidden, but trusted partners and allies to help them influence the right people in unexpected ways to successfully meet the outcomes of their change initiative.

Sources:

• https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-role-of-networks-in-organizational-change
• The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations (2004 – 4th Edition). Rob Cross and Andrew Parker