How to Implement Change Management for Data Quality and Data Governance: Featuring Mary Gregory
In this interview, we caught up with Leadership Change expert and author, Mary Gregory, to find out why it is often challenging to create change in data quality and data governance programs, particularly amongst senior leaders.
Mary is the author of ‘Ego - get over yourself and lead!’ and is a renowned Leadership Coach and Consultant, Author and Speaker on the topic of change management.
Can you describe your background Mary and explain how you became involved with change management?
Mary Gregory: My background has always been in enabling people and supporting change. I had an early career in psychiatry before becoming a training manager for First Choice holidays where I helped implement leadership and management, innovative service improvement and quality initiatives.
In 1993 I became an independant consultant, leading and managing the training and facilitation of some major change programmes in organisations such as the Benefits Agency, BAA and Tesco.
On completing my NLP Business Practitioner training and an MSc in Change my focus essentially shifted from one of training to being more a Change Agent.
My experience is mainly about helping organisations develop strong, cohesive leadership teams to deliver business growth by creating a culture of engagement and high performance. I work mostly in large complex service organisations in both the private and public sectors, including Polo Ralph Lauren, HBOS, First National Bank, Omgeo, Tesco, T Mobile, MTV, The Economist, Westminster Council.
What are the typical type of change initiatives you are involved in.
Mary Gregory: I typically consult in the following initiatives:
Turning around business performance
Restructuring of departments and business processes
Engaging and mobilising the workforce in the fulfilment of the vision
Working with executive team to co-create a vision and strategy and aligning to ensure this is implemented
Developing a performance culture
Managing resistance
Overcoming silo thinking
Conflict resolution
Building leadership capabilities
One of the common issues cited in our profession is where data quality initiatives appear to be successful but over time the improvements are lost and workers slip back into their old habits. How can we make change stick?
Mary Gregory: The challenge of every change project is making it stick.
What many change initiative miss is the understanding and appreciation of who we are as human beings and how this impacts the change process. So often I have experienced quite grandiose plans, expensive development of IT and systems, only for the one element which is crucial to ensuring this change takes place almost remaining a mystery and that is the engagement and motivation of people.
Culture is that almost invisible force that not only impacts the attitude and affect of an organisations workforce, but also pulls them relentlessly back into old ways of thinking, doing and being, like being caught in an unseen current that drags you back downstream. People may initially be completely fired up and fully motivated seemingly bought into new ways of working, but as soon as something goes wrong that spark quickly disappears as they are re-immersed in the organisations culture. What occurs then in most instances is unconscious reactive behaviour which then perpetuates the re-immersion in the culture and a grip of the cultural pattern can seem almost impossible to shift.
The access to transform this and create change more likely to stick is to:
Recognise the human mindset and accept that there will be a pull towards the cultural status quo.
Create and champion a vision that is really compelling and is a burning platform that calls people into action. Ensure this is communicated powerfully, talked about with visible actions taking place that demonstrate movement towards fulfilling the vision (as opposed to being pinned to the wall and forgotten).
Develop a leadership team who can be counted on more often than not to keep focusing on and creating the future. This must be started at the top with the executive team and transmitted throughout the organisation. Everyone within the organisation has the capacity to be a leader and real leaders are those who bring out the leadership in others. The cultivation of this type of approach is the most positive one I have experienced in enabling change to stick.
Don't allow breakdowns to be dramatised into major crises. When breakdowns occur, which is all part of the process of change, keep re-focusing on the future vision and ensure the action taken is movement towards rather than back into old behaviour and cultural norms.
Engage stakeholders early on, the more involved people are towards development of the change, the more likely they are to commit to it and support action that will fulfil it.
Consultant and coaching support are vital to create a culture change that sticks. This is because those who already work within the organisation are most commonly blind to how they are caught up in the organisations culture, whereas professional who offer outside support can ensure they keep a clearer and more objective view of the breakdowns and challenges when they occur.
If an organisation can't find a sponsor or senior backer for their change initiative is it best to suspend completely or are there any "guerilla tactics" you can recommend?
Mary Gregory: In my experience no matter how flat an organisations’ structure, for change to really occur, it has to be sponsored by someone at the top, in fact sponsored seems too soft a word. Any senior person has to be completely committed to the change happening as if their life depended on it. That's why having a vision which creates a burning platform – i.e. creates the necessary urgency and momentum, is so fundamental to the change actually happening.
I believe that the most effective way to engage and communicate with people is to be straight, honest and authentic.
Guerilla tactics as such smack of "game playing” which risk people experiencing being manipulated, and hugely affects levels of trust, thus impacting the buy in and ownership people have towards the change. Trust is key to change happening and those organisations who are seen as great places to work and can enable change effectively are those that also have the greatest levels of trust.
It obviously sounds like we need more change agents in our profession so what do you feel are the skills and traits of a change agent?
Mary Gregory: Someone who is able to:
Hold the picture of the future, whilst dealing with the emerging process and hold the ambiguity that is often present during the implementation of any change
Understand the organisational, team and individual behaviour
Listen exceptionally well and tune into being aware of possible patterns of resistance that could sabotage the change
Communicate easily and where necessary offer ongoing motivation and support to all levels of the organisation
There are so many different change management methodologies and frameworks available - how do we know which one is applicable for the challenges in our industry?
Mary Gregory: There are certainly a lot of methodologies, some of which are complex in themselves and what is important in choosing any methodology or process is to ensure that it takes account of the human element. Organisations are only extra large groups of people so to proceed with a methodology that only pays attention to tasks and processes without really addressing the engagement of employees is asking for things to go wrong. Time and again it is proven that the more involved people are in the planning and delivery, the more likely the change will stick.
In terms of addressing the organisational needs and finding the solution that could best meet these, it is helpful to consider the bigger organisational system that is at play here.
In my earlier career I worked in Child and Family Psychiatry where the roots of Systems Theory comes from. How this methodology works comes from the premise that when a child is referred for therapy he/she is often considered the "problem". In taking a Systemic view of the situation, the child’s problematic behaviour is looked upon as symptomatic of something in the bigger "system" that is not working, for example the parents relationship. Treating the child's behaviour will therefore not deal with what is really the issue.
Systems Theory encourages us to step back and look at the overall bigger picture and how different elements of this may be contributing to things not working. Once you identify the real issue to be addressed and go address it then the whole functionality of the system is improved.
This methodology is particularly valuable in the organisational context, particularly very large organisations as they are such enormous systems. Where this methodology is so useful is it supports change happening at the most crucial point. In this example changing the child’s behaviour may have brought short term relief only for the problem to re-occur again later, whereas addressing the parents relationship, which was at the source of the family not functioning, would provide the chance for longer term sustainable change.
Similarly solutions in organisations are often geared towards treating symptoms and do not address the bigger issue that might be at play.
An example from a very early assignment I worked on was when I was invited to conduct a series of assertiveness workshops. It was thought a majority of the team needed to develop less aggressive customer handling skills. The training was not that successful and when I explored further why this was the case it seemed that the leadership style within the organisation was aggressive. If the managing director shouted jump the response was "how high?" People were inhibited and scared. They were also frustrated and this was directly reflected in how they spoke to and handled their customers.
Senior level sponsorship is fundamental to implementing change and another method which is invaluable is Executive Team Alignment, developed by consultant and author Miles Kierson over a 15 year period of his working with executive teams and organisational transformation. This offers a bespoke process which engages people from the very top down. It is a focused senior consultancy piece that addresses a part of the system that has a major impact on the rest of the organisation. As the driving force of the organisation, the dynamics that are at play on the Executive Team are most likely to be reflected in how teams and people in the organisation act and behave elsewhere.
For example in a marketing led organisation I worked with once, there was a competitive relationship between the marketing director and operations director. This resulted in the two not working together effectively which was then reflected in a disconnect between the marketing and operations departments. Marketing would create promotional campaigns without informing Operations who would find out quite often via the customer that certain special offers and facilities were expected. The impact was dissatisfied customers, loss of revenue, high levels of litigation, loss of reputation and high staff turnover, who were stressed out by having to deal with irate customers. Yet prior to this particular organisations change, the finger of blame was squarely pointed at the Operations department. Not until the Executive Board co-created a vision and aligned in their commitment to the whole organisations success did shared responsibility really take place and systems set up which ensured effective communication and consultation across directorates.
So aligning the Executive Team addresses the issue of senior management ownership and provides senior leaders with the capability to transform a company’s performance and shift their whole mindset so that to each senior leader is committed to the fulfilment of an overall vision, over and above personal agenda’s. Having a clear vision that everyone buys into, makes it easier to prioritise what change needs to happen and in what order.
However even a vision doesn’t stop change appearing like something that is just so huge its hard to know where to start. I like the old adage "You wouldn’t eat an elephant in one bite", similarly change needs to be broken down into smaller steps. Its also important to look for as many opportunities as possible to engage people including the less formal ones such as round the coffee machine where most of the really honest conversation take place.
A challenge when it comes to IT change is that many people don’t appreciate why the change needs to take place and particularly if the population of an organisation are not inclined towards technical thinking and find such a change takes them out of their comfort zone. Such fear results in resistance which is why ownership from the top, alignment with the overall strategy and vision and constant dialogue and consultation with stakeholders is so important.
Many people perceive change management as a large programme, that requires expensive external consultants and long periods of time to realise benefits. Based on your practical experience in this field, what is the reality of a typical change management initiative?
Mary Gregory: Change takes place at many different levels: personally, across teams and ultimately across organisations. The size of the programme depends on what is the organisations desired change.
Before embarking on any change an organisation needs to be clear of what its purpose is (why it is in business) and what it ultimately wants to achieve – its vision and goals.
It then needs to assess its overall fitness to deliver its vision and goals and from understanding what is working and what is not working and where the root of this is in the bigger system, a choice about the how and where change needs to take place can be made.
Avoid change for change sake.
I had one client that even referred to themselves as having "change-itis". The news of up and coming change was often met with rolled eyes and the comment "Oh no not another initiative".
Change has got to be linked to strategy which in turn needs to come from a compelling vision to which the different elements of an organisation need to be aligned, all of which starts at the top with the executive team.
Change programmes don’t always have to be huge multi-limbed monsters. From taking a temperature check of the organisations overall "fitness" to achieve its goals, I would always encourage my clients to look for the smallest thing that will make the biggest difference.
In one instance the desired change was to create a more open and supportive culture. The intervention that was the most simplest and cost effective was to coach the CEO on his interpersonal style, overall presence and leadership skills. This then enabled him to lead the executive team more effectively, and develop role model behaviour which promoted openness and trust. This was then taken on board by the executive team who similarly influenced their own teams.
However not all change is so simple and the very nature of larger organisations is that they are complex places. The reality of many change programmes is that things do not usually go to plan. Every change programme has its own underpinning process or dynamics stemming from the organisations culture, politics and level of trust and openness. This will influence how easily the change rolls out and how quickly any benefits are realised.
The skills of an excellent consultant are that they are able to see the dynamics of the system and culture at play, thereby either pre-empting these in some way or at least remaining objective in order to deal with them. A skilled change consultant should also be able to support, hold and guide their client through the uncertainty and breakdowns that naturally occur as part of the change cycle. The challenge for the client when it comes to change is that they are often blind to the cultural forces within the organisational system that will inhibit the change. Like a fish is so immersed in water it has no way of distinguishing actually what water is, so the client is immersed in the organisations’ system and culture, making it very difficult for them to define it. It's very difficult to deal with something you cannot see. Culture is also what sustains the status quo and prevents change happening, it becomes very clear that someone who is not wrapped up in the system has a really important role to play here.
The most common element that occurs with any change be it personal or organisational reactive or proactive, is it brings up thoughts and feelings which are uncomfortable and result in resistance. All resistance comes from fear and the way to reduce fear and make it safe for people is to allow concerns to be voiced and addressed. An effective change agent makes it safe for people to be able to embrace change.
External consultants fees can be viewed as an expensive cost, yet the cost of not utilising someone with the skills and understanding of the very nature of people, organisations and change is far greater if the change fails or the company cannot turn around performance. I have yet to see a change project be completed effectively without some form of outside support.
One common issue in DQ/DG programs is where executive sponsors are paying ‘lip-service’ to the goals of the program and their involvement. Do you have any advice for how to get these type of stakeholders active in a project so their support will help change the culture and behaviour of an organisation?
Mary Gregory: I think when looking at this issue it's important to take account that any senior manager sponsoring the change is part of the much bigger organisational system so blaming one element or person within that system is not necessarily constructive.
Pointing the finger at the senior management sponsor and saying they are paying lip service is only one perception and when this is happening what often is also happening is that the senior manager(s) may well be pointing the finger right back and the whole situation results in polarisation.
When this occurs, nobody wins and the whole purpose of the change is lost while people use up time and energy in pointing out the shortfalls of the other party. This is a very helpful method if you want to not only sabotage the change but also avoid any responsibility for it not working out!
My question would be more about how can you be sure the senior manager who is sponsoring the change is totally bought into it? To make your initiative successful the senior manager has to really own the change.
To understand this further, it's useful to consider what we mean by ownership.
If I own a car for example I will want to make sure its fit for purpose so will keep it well maintained and legally in order with regular services, insurance etc. If I don’t do that I will have to face the consequences that the car could break down. I have to put time and energy into keeping my car in good condition and fit for purpose. I do that because I own the car and want to use it rather than face the alternative consequences. As a senior manager responsible for sponsoring a change, there needs to be the same level of ownership that causes the action that will implement the change.
Why senior management sponsorship can appear lacking, is often a reflection of how the whole system is functioning or in this case dysfunctioning. Which in turn is usually a reflection of what is going on within the executive team itself.
To really create the level of ownership required to ensure the change happens there needs to be alignment on the senior executive team on why the change is happening and how it will serve in fulfilling the vision. Yet how well a senior team is functioning and how aligned they are is something that is frequently left unaddressed. Energy is far more easily put into focusing on operational issues than looking at how a team is functioning interpersonally and the impact this has on implementing the strategy for change.
Alignment is a word that is being used more and more in the context of organisational change and there are many different interpretations of it.
Some people use it as a description of a teams level of compliance to a decision. The question gets asked "Are we all aligned with that?" and the board responds with various nods around the room, when in reality there may well be lots of non-aligned thinking really going on. The impact is that outside the room the complete opposite actions take place.
It is about a team truly pulling together, so that they take on the decisions of the team and CEO as their own, even though they might not necessarily agree with all of them. It's also about them being committed to each others success as much as their own and letting go of the competition between silos.
To truly be an aligned team takes something exceptional from each individual member of the team, because to sign up to such a way of being for a team requires all members to overcome some fundamental human programming.
Being truly aligned as a team requires the courage to hold your colleagues to account, participate in straight talk and to get over your own ego. It is possible and it takes something to achieve.
My advice to any organisation who may be struggling with senior management sponsorship in implementing change is to look to the whole senior executive team and address the dynamics that are impacting the team pulling together and aligning.
An aligned team does not tolerate senior executive under-performance. The very nature of becoming an aligned team supports the development of commitment to implementing necessary changes and the whole team holding each other to account on promised actions.
How do you define the different phases of change an organisation must go through?
Mary Gregory: This depends whether you are talking about an organisations evolution as a whole entity or the phases of a planned proactive change as opposed to reactive change which is a response to circumstances.
I think the S curve is useful to appreciate where an organisations is in its process of change as this also indicates the different skills and personality types which work best for different phases – i.e. entrepreneurial skills to get the change moving, evaluative skills at the conclusion of the change.
Kotter’s Change Process maps out 8 steps which illustrate the behaviour and attitude required at each stage and which focus on developing a sense of urgency and persistence.
I also like these simpler 4 stages developed by Miles Keirson:
1) Formulate:
Recognising the need to change – creating a compelling vision
Putting in place the foundations from which to launch the change – executive team alignment, CEO/senior executive ownership
Structures and strategy for fulfilling the vision
Development of leadership capabilities
Engagement of stakeholders
Championing and communicating the vision throughout the organisation
2) Manifest:
Action taken to fulfil the strategy for change
Local champions supporting and facilitating movement towards the vision
Development of organisational capabilities
Systems for accountability and key milestones
Dealing with breakdowns and managing the ambiguous process
3) Realise:
Persistent and consistent action focused towards the vision
Responding to emerging and created opportunities
Ongoing communication and acknowledgement of progress
Collation of results
4) Culminate/formulate
Action to fulfil completion of the vision
Recognition of achievements and peoples contribution
Evaluation and analysis of process and progress
Review results and re-formulation
Finally, what advice do you have for organisations that are starting out on a data governance programme that is largely dependent on change management?
Mary Gregory: Before embarking on any change I think the most valuable thing to do is to ask some basic questions:
Why change? What purpose is it going to serve?
What is the outcome we want to achieve with this change? What will be happening as a result of this change that is not happening now?
How does this change link to the business’s overall strategy? Is it aligned to the strategy or a localised, reactive change which bears no relation to the overall vision of the company?
What is the overall vision? How will this change take the business closer towards fulfilling it?
What is the cost of the change vs the cost of not changing?
Who is leading the change? Does leadership come from the executive board? Are the executive board aligned and championing the change?
Who is this change going to affect? Therefore, who are the stakeholders we need to be in communication and consultation with from the beginning?
What are the dynamics at play in this organisation? What factors will help or hinder change? How will these potentially impact the implementation of this change? (This could include more implicit cultural elements such as cross department ways of working, openness to change, to more visible dynamics such as Union representation)
What messages and education do I need to give about this change and why it is taking place? Who do I need to give this to?
How can we make sure that people are involved in the change from as soon as possible?
Is this change compelling for everyone? And if not how can we make it so?
Key Points:
Engagement and motivation of people is crucial to making change stick
Recognise the human mindset and accept that there will be a pull towards the cultural status quo
Create and champion a vision that is really compelling and is a burning platform that calls people into action
Develop a leadership team who can be counted on more often than not to keep focusing on and creating the future
Everyone within the organisation has the capacity to be a leader
Real leaders are those who bring out the leadership in others
Cultivation of this type of leadership is critical when enabling change to stick
Breakdowns and setbacks will occur, this is all part of the process of change
Keep re-focusing on the future vision and ensure progressive action is taken
Engage stakeholders early on, involved stakeholders are more likely to commit to change and support actions that will fulfil it
Consultant and coaching support are vital to create a culture change that sticks
People who already work within the organisation are most commonly blind to how they are caught up in the organisations culture
External professionals ensure a clearer and more objective view of breakdowns and challenges when they occur
For change to really occur, it has to be sponsored by someone at the top
Any senior person has to be completely committed to the change happening as if their life depended on it
A vision which creates a burning platform (providing urgency and momentum) is fundamental to change actually happening
The most effective way to engage and communicate with people is to be straight, honest and authentic
Trust is key to change happening
Those organisations who are seen as great places to work and can enable change effectively are those that also have the greatest levels of trust
A change agent must be able to create a strong vision for the future, cope with ambiguity, understand organisational behaviour, listen intently for signs of sabotage and communicate freely
About the Author
Mary Gregory helps organisations develop strong, cohesive leadership teams to deliver business growth by creating a culture of engagement and high performance.
With a successful track record in learning, development and change management, Mary takes a pragmatic approach underpinned by her knowledge and understanding of both individual and organisational behaviours.
She is the author of 'Ego: Get over yourself and Lead', a book packed with leadership stories, useful psychological models and reflective activities and exercises to enable leaders to better understand themselves and the different dynamics at play in their relationships, allowing them to effectively manage the many challenges faced in today’s workplace.