From Hope to Change: Tips for the New Administration
Inaugurating a New Era
The 2008 U.S. Presidential Election was all about “change.” Change was the major theme of Barack Obama’s campaign, and one which John McCain also tried to seize. (Of course, many pundits believe every election is about change.) With President Obama taking the reins of the massive enterprise that is the U.S. Federal Government, we will now see if the talk of change will lead to meaningful action, or if it was just talk.
Obviously, Obama won’t change things on his own. The real work will happen at the agency or department level. The President’s job is to make a case for his agenda to the American people, define a vision that can be translated across the hundreds of federal agencies, and then select the right team to execute that vision. In this sense, it’s useful to think of Obama as the Chairman and CEO of a holding company (call it White House, Inc.), and the various federal agencies as operating units.
The severe economic situation limits the new administration’s options in some areas, but will require new processes and capabilities in others (e.g., tracking the bailout money). Even in the best of times, however, enacting large-scale change is difficult. The best academic studies of businesses show that about 60% of change initiatives fail to meet objectives or realize the expected ROI. Many private sector executives love to deride government’s low productivity and lack of innovation, but it appears they too are more proficient in talking about change than actually delivering it. Public sector leaders face an additional challenge in the cyclical nature of politics. The new administration has a very brief time
period – two years, basically – to re-direct the ship of state before elections will once again become the top priority. Mid-level staff may be energized by new leadership today, but that energy can dissipate if it isn’t harnessed. Career workers in the agencies will then begin to wait on the next administration.
Best Practices We Can Believe In
All these factors mean the success of the new administration will be largely determined by its ability to plan for, communicate, manage and measure its change initiatives. In fact, such best practices for change management may prove more valuable to the new President than his inspirational rhetoric, diplomatic skills or even innovative ideas for re-booting the economy.
So, in the spirit of “change we can believe in,” we offer the following tips, recommendations and insights for the new President. Specifically, the Obama team should:
- Get specific about change
- Target and prioritize
- Move quickly
- Right-pace change
- Create bottom-up energy
- Encourage resistance
Collectively, these proven change enablers represent the heart of our Change EngineeringSM approach, an objective, best practices-based methodology that has helped both public sector organizations and corporations drive more value from their change programs. More value from government – now that’s something, I believe, every American would vote for.
Proven Change Enablers for Obama
» Get Specific About Change: There’s no denying that Obama’s candidacy was inspiring to many voters, and that’s certainly an advantage for building momentum for the changes to come. But lofty rhetoric must now give way to clearly defined goals, specific policy proposals and detailed action plans.
Specificity is important because change will be delivered primarily at the departmental level. This isn’t a call for Obama to serve as Micromanager-in-Chief. Rather, he must define the vision and appoint the right leaders to enact it. Those leaders then work with their deputies to develop specific action plans highlighting which processes will run differently, which jobs will be affected, which departments or functions will be re-tooled, in order to fulfill the vision.
It can be a huge job just to model the necessary changes. At one public sector agency, our Change Engineers documented hundreds of processes and workflows to ensure operations were compliant with a new mission and regulations. In working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), I was involved with a team that captured the technology, process and organizational requirements and modeled the financial impacts when that new agency was created. This sort of granular insight is necessary to make the most of change investments.
Clearly “defining the delta” has a few other important benefits: it provides a roadmap so workers know where they are headed and why the effort is worthwhile; it reduces the risk of “scope creep;” and, it creates visibility into ongoing progress. That’s why government leaders from Obama on down should err on the side of specificity.
» Target & Prioritize: Healthcare, economic stimulus, tax changes, energy, the War on Terror – there is no shortage of urgent matters facing the new President, but trying to do too much can be deadly. With a long to-do list, targeting change efforts to the highest-impact areas and prioritizing initiatives is critical to get anything done. The focus should be on demonstrable results in specific areas.
In our experience, it’s common for leaders and managers to overestimate how much change their organizations can handle. Taking on too much change at once usually results in disruptions of existing operations and a bogging down of the grand vision – however noble – in thousands of details. Thus, Obama and his team must recognize that, even with the huge resources of the government and fairly broad public support, there are limits to how much any organization can change.
And that includes the country itself. Voters may call for change, but then struggle with the day-to-day reality of it. For instance, how willing are Americans to change behaviors to reduce energy consumption?
Similarly, it’s fair to ask how much change voters actually endorsed. I think the country wants pragmatic, proactive solutions to the immediate problems before us – especially the economy. If the administration can successfully mitigate soaring unemployment or rampant foreclosures, for example, it will gain support for more sweeping changes.
» Move Quickly: When it comes to change, speed counts, as I learned when working at DHS. Merging several organizations, streamlining processes and integrating systems in support of common goals were the tasks at hand as the agency was formed. New management had a narrow window of opportunity to get the various teams working together. Initial support had to be mobilized quickly into action, with quick wins to help build momentum. This was symbolically and practically important as it built trust in new leadership, reduced resistance and highlighted that there was a point to the pain of change.
DHS was formed soon after 9/11, and many new workers joined the department from careers in the private sector, because they wanted to serve their country. The same thing appears to be happening with the new administration. Capturing that energy is vital. The politically appointed agency heads have about six months to adjust to their new roles and then about 18 months to produce results. After that, new and old workers alike may become disillusioned and start waiting on the next election or focusing more on their own positions than on fulfilling the vision.
» Right-Pace Change: “Right-pacing” change is ultimately as important as “right-sizing.” Obama should emphasize the idea that this is a long-term journey. Steady momentum based on incremental gains and milestones achieved is the way to build up national endurance and support for change.
To execute successful change within the government, agencies must establish the right management rhythm and tempo. The appointed leaders are responsible for translating the vision into programs. Their deputies must ensure the entire portfolio of projects is managed effectively, consistently and in line with big-picture goals. Further down the organization, individual projects – e.g., software upgrades or process implementation – must be tracked carefully against plans, budgets and objectives. To operationalize change in this way, organizations need to establish effective business rhythms, like synchronized decision making processes, repeating operational reviews, and clear reporting structures.
Together, moving quickly and right-pacing change minimize the risk of “change fatigue,” a common issue resulting from endless change cycles. Studies indicate that initiatives lasting longer than two years fail more frequently.
» Create Bottom-up Energy: Because the U.S. Federal Government is so large, change doesn’t happen in a strictly top-down way. We’ve found time and again that middle management and front-line employees can block even the best intentioned or sorely needed programs. But, if properly informed and motivated, these groups make change a reality.
For Obama, mobilizing management and staff across far- flung Federal agencies means ensuring that staff understands the “why” and “how” of change. The Obama campaign was notable for its engagement with the grass roots and its use of electronic channels of communication.
If his administration can sustain this connection with the public, while at the same time engaging hundreds of thousands of federal government employees, he will prove himself to be quite a skilled Change Engineer.
» Encourage Resistance: Encouraging resistance is a great way to create bottom-up energy. This is especially true at large agencies, where long-time staff may resist the ideas of political appointees coming in. But new leaders can make allies by listening to and engaging with all stakeholders. It’s a great way to boost morale, build organizational appetite for change and get more value from existing intellectual assets.
In our experience, middle managers and staff-level employees embrace change more quickly if their perspectives are recognized and they have the chance to share ideas (or even just plain vent) about proposed changes. By encouraging overt resistance, managers may discover new ideas and fresh thinking, and open up lines of communication. And they reduce the risk that the leadership vision will be sabotaged by those who fear change or prefer the status quo.
While it may seem counterintuitive, the strongest teams are built through open acknowledgement of disparate viewpoints and candid dialogues. That’s true at the top, middle and bottom of organizations.
Bottom Line: Delivering on Promises
You don’t have to be an Obama supporter to recognize that a rigorous, practical and holistic approach to change can help address the immediate challenges facing our country, and could make the new administration highly effective. The idea that organizations can effectively design and manage change programs in line with broader, bigger-picture goals is distinctly non-partisan. We’ve seen the best practices outlined above generate improvements for a wide range of organizations in both the private and public sectors. That’s why we hope to see President Obama and his team adopt them – and soon.
