Yesterday was a good day with a client in Los Angeles. It's a non-profit association with two dozen branch offices. The process was good - I helped them see the situation clearly. They had some key issues to deal with. The authority has traditionally been vested in the local branches, not in the central association office. The first issue they needed to tangle with was how to construct a more rational system that devolved sufficient authority to the central hub to enable the organization to operate efficiently.
Wrapped around the governance question was a financial issue - the organization, though profitable, was declining financially. Something needed to be done to create a sustainable business model. Happily, they had the answers at their fingertips. Many of the pieces were already being conceived - a much bigger fund-raising operation, more vertical oversight of back office operations. But several pieces of the puzzle were missing - most importantly, a strategy for front-loading the investment in new capacity. Where was the money going to come from? Second, they needed to agree on what oversight by the central association office really meant? Did it mean true performance management with consistent expectations tied to both positive and negative consequences? Or did it mean something else?
By the end of the two days, we had the puzzle completely assembled. We figured out which assets would be sold to raise the cash. We figured out a new framework for flexible governance and oversight, rewarding high performing branches with more autonomy, penalizing low performing branches with more oversight. We had the performance assessment piece in place. We'd sharply defined the role of the branch directors. We had worked on the vocabulary and messages to describe the strategy effectively. By the end of the second day, everyone had their assignments. The team was aligned. They were ready to go.

A CEO of a high-tech company told me today his story of managing change. The company has doubled in size over the past three years. Alex decided to split the company into two business units, headed by two new senor vice presidents. From a structural perspective, it made sense.
Rather than promote from within, however, he brought in two people from the outside whom he felt would change the company's culture. He wanted more discipline and management expertise, he told me. The problem is that the people who used to report to Alex are chafing. They don't feel respected for the work they've done. They miss the direct access and the open culture. They feel the new structure isn't working.
"What can I do?" Alex asked me.
First, I said, think about managing change. That's your role. How are you communicating why the new structure is important and the value it will have for the company? What are you doing to make sure everyone understands?
"I know I'm not doing enough," he said.
I also talked about his leadership style. "In the old structure, you were comfortable directing people and telling them what to do." That won't work in this new structure, I told him.
He listened as I went on. "You're the one who has to change. Otherwise, you'll undercut your new senior vice presidents. You've got to be their coach.  As a coach, you can't tell them what to do. You have to ask them good questions, and get them to assume responsibility for making the change work successfully."
He thought about it for a while, asked a few questions, and then said: "It makes a lot of sense. How could you help us?"
"I could help the three of you develop a game plan for managing change. I think that would have enormous impact."
"Great!" he said. "When can we start?"

There are two conversations that leaders assume they can have once, and then be done with - at least or a while. Those are conversations about roles and goals. Many leaders assume they can talk about them once a year or so, and that's enough. Or so they assume.

It's my experience, however, that conversations about roles and goals need to occur all the time. As the leader, you may think you're repeating yourself. Yet the people hearing your views about roles and goals are gaining important new information and insights each time.  Why? First of all, roles and goals often change, so people are often operating on old information. Second, by emphasizing roles and goals, leaders provide people the confidence that someone has the big picture in mind and is managing it.

Third, and most important, most of the conflicts inside an organization are about roles and goals. Who's the final decision maker on this program or project? How are we measuring success? Talking about roles and goals gives people a forum to surface those conflicts and resolve them. Remember, communication breaks down because the appropriate conversations are not taking place. It's the leader's responsibility to know what conversations are essential - and to keep having them.

For management consultants, one of the basic credos is “know who your client is.” This is drilled into us as professionals.  If you don’t know who your client is, then you can’t determine how best to serve their interests. That can lead to all sorts of problems.

Yesterday, I discovered during the contracting process that who I thought was the client, isn’t the client, and who I thought was a stakeholder is the client – at least in their minds.  Sound confusing? It was. But I also realized that I could potentially use this contracting conflict as an opportunity to force the issue around roles and responsibilities and get it resolved. That would help both “clients” become much more productive in their relationship with each other. Assuming, of course, they are willing to go through that process. The question is: Are they both open to re-defining their relationship?

Stay tuned. This will be interesting!