Which one you think matters most in context of change initiatives? This is where I am – Executive sponsorship is hygiene! it is essential but not sufficient.. Without grass-root leadership, you can not execute successful change..

I am aware that I am questioning many established beliefs in change/ project management models but I am convinced that grass-root leadership matters more than executive sponsorship. Here are my reasons

• A typical executive sponsor, oversees multiple initiatives while managing the BAU activities
• As an executive sponsor, change recipients expect you to say the right things and do the right things. This means that many a times what you are saying/ doing is viewed with a certain amount of scepticism. In short, your words/actions are discounted before they really reach the audience
• You can only do the talk and may be little bit of the walk. You are away and most of the times distant from the real recipients of change. If you are typical of an executive sponsor, you are not aware of all the minor details that can actually dictate the success or failure of an initiative
• With all the right intentions in your mind, you can’t still be a total advocate for the change recipients on the ground. You have other pressures which might distract you from advocacy of change recipients.
• Many a times as an executive sponsor, you are more interested in seeing the change work and you push people towards success of the change. It should be the other way round. Change should work for people and not the other way round.
• Finally you have vested interested; unless you are one of those authentic leaders you will always be part of ‘them’ and never part of ‘us’

Lets look at the grass-root leadership

• Unless it is explicitly driven by project, grass-root leadership has better chance of coming across as authentic as there are usually no vested interests
• Grass-root leaders are usually change recipients so they do feel the pain and are in the best position to show empathy
• For very self-fish reasons, grass-root leaders tend to be the best at fighting the battles for the change recipients
• Grass-root leaders usually have a focus on the specific things that are being changed and are aware of the small things that can make big impact
• Grass-root leaders can lead by example without having the burden of scepticism

I am not saying that we do away with executive sponsorship, I still think it matters. It is symbolic and tells the recipients that these are the things that matter. I am saying that it is not enough. That will not take you to the end goal. The end goal I assume is the change in behaviours and culture leading to business benefits. To achieve that, you need authentic grass-root leadership that can drive the recipients from within. In my mind, the role of executive sponsors is to cultivate this leadership while continuing the symbolic things. I think the role of an executive sponsor need to be re-examined in the context of what matters and what will make the most impact on the final goal !! – change in behaviours and culture resulting in business benefits

Surendra

Culture in the simplest terms is – ‘How we do things here’

Ask yourself a simple question – ‘Am I doing anything that will change the way things are done here’. If your answer is Yes, then be rest assured that you are undertaking a culture change.

Do this for any and every change you are trying to introduce in an organisational environment and you will be surprised how many times the answer is Yes. You might suddenly realise that you are actually impacting the organisational culture with most of your change initiatives. The question is why does it matter and what can you do differently?

It matters because it can help explain user behaviour in most of the cases. In many of the change initiatives, even a simple logical change fails to land and users just refuse to adopt the change. Change managers are left scratching their heads to no avail. From my perspective the explanation is mostly straightforward -Your change is not in sync with ‘how we do things here’. What makes it worse that we have never realised this and done nothing to be in-sync with ‘How we do things here’ aka Culture. We might have looked at the change as a business process change, technology change, Organisational restructure or many other things but not as a ‘culture change’.

Even when we realise that every change is a culture change, many a times another question still goes unanswered – ‘So what?’. It is all good to know something but what is the point if it does not help our cause?

The moment you realise that every change is cultural change, you can start looking at it from the Cultural lens. You questions and the answers you are seeking change. You start unearthing deep rooted fears and apprehensions that are stopping people from adopting change. Instead of focusing on just the symptoms aka ‘adoption stats’, you will start diagnosing the problem.

Let’s look at a simple example

Bottom-up sales reporting through a system vs reporting through excel – On the face of it , this seems like a technology challenge or at best behaviour challenge. Think again! The real challenge is around transparency and fear of being exposed/ judged. ‘The way things are done’ are going to be changed and people are not ready. Yes a bad system might be causing the issues and the IT support might not be good enough but if users cannot get over their deep rooted fears around being exposed..

As I said at the start, if we look carefully every change is a culture change. Just that in most cases we take time to realise it..

I cannot seem to get over one particular article I read recently- ‘The Virat Kohli Paradox. It has nothing to do with business or change or technology but somehow it stayed with me. The article essentially looks at why Virat Kohli (the current Indian cricket team captain) does not appeal to the Indian cricket fans in the same way as ‘Sachin Tendulkar’ did. Explanation the article provides – ‘The Narrative and how it does or does not appeal to the audience’.

Why is it that we can relate to few things, people and stories more than others? Why do we allow some individuals to lead us and not others? Why do we get behind some movements but could not be bothered about others? Why do we rally behind few change initiatives but just resist others? I think the answer to these questions lies in the narrative.

For everyone out there who is not a cricket fan and doesn’t really care about Virat Kohli, let’s look at a different example, may be in football. Why do fans love to see an academy product or a ‘local lad’ playing in the league for the club? Why does a Harry Cane or a Steven Gerrard get the most love from Fans while the big money buys struggle to build connections? The answer again lies in the ‘Narrative’.

Now I did not grow up watching football but I am sure many football fans played football growing up and had that one dream – ‘ One day I want to play for my local league team’. Based on my own worship of Sachin Tendulkar, I can guess that as fans they see a Harry Cane or a Steven Gerrard or a John Terry as the one who gets to live their dream and that is the Narrative. They can relate to these players in a way that they can’t with others. They cannot relate to an equally remarkable narrative of a foreign player who immigrated to a foreign country and is trying to survive in an alien environment. Some of the foreign players do develop that special bond with fans but it takes special efforts and time. Without those efforts and time there would not be a Henry or a Zola…

In my own case, I can relate to Sachin Tendulkar because his narrative appeals to me. He was born in a family not so much different than my own. He believed in hard work, dedication and conquered the world just based on that. Now I will definitely never do that but Tendulkar gave me the belief that it can be done.

I guess I am yet to tell you why I am not able to get this particular article out of my head. I work in Change Management and my primary responsibility is to help people change. There are times when I am puzzled when people do not get behind a particular change. Everything seems to be logically correct but the change just does not appeal to the recipients. This particular article made me think that this had something to do with the ‘Narrative’.

An organisation introduces a number of changes in its environment but as a narrative only few appeal to the audiences. There only few changes that make the connection which makes individuals get behind the change. Every change has a narrative but may be organisations do not make enough effort to relate the narrative with the audiences. More often than not organisations do not answer the questions – ‘Why should I bother?’, ‘What is in it for me’, ‘What does this mean for me’.

Just like footballers, few changes come with the right narrative. These changes are things that people always wanted and rooted for. For others, those need special efforts and time. If time and efforts are on offer, those changes can also form a narrative that appeals to the recipients. Finally it all comes down to the narrative!