Whether change agents are internal or external, they often have to operate in an environment where sponsors are less than prepared to perform their role. Here are some guidelines for addressing common challenges agents face when in service to sponsors.

Aim for realization, not installation.

Many sponsors focus on installing critical changes—putting solutions in place—rather than realizing the intended business benefits. Be sure you and your sponsor are clear on whether you are working toward full realization of the initiative’s objectives or some degree of installation with reduced expectations.

Make strong sponsorship your top priority.

Realization of change is impossible without sufficient sponsor commitment and the capacity to follow through with his or her intentions. Successful agents foster the necessary sponsor behaviors to build and maintain three critical elements:

• Sponsors’ understanding of the true scope of the initiatives they are chartered to execute—the precise requirements for success, the level of demand that will be placed on the organization and its people, the dynamics of how personal and organizational transformation unfold, and the duties and responsibilities they carry as senior sponsors
• The depth of unwavering commitment each sponsor will be called on to exhibit
• The synergistic alignment the senior sponsor team will be expected to demonstrate

No major change can be implemented successfully unless agents and targets play their roles effectively. This won’t happen unless sponsors demonstrate strong understanding, commitment, and alignment. Regardless of the level of enthusiasm that may exist at lower levels or in other parts of the organization, long-term substantive change will not be achieved without sponsors who are willing and able to perform their role effectively.

Be vigilant about the fundamentals of sponsorship.

• Weak sponsors must be educated or replaced, or failure is inevitable.

When sponsors who lack a full understanding of the change implications are unwilling or unable to take the actions necessary to secure critical resources—or are unwilling or unable to fulfill their role requirements—they must be educated or replaced. Otherwise, the change effort will fail to meet its objective(s).

• Sponsorship can’t be delegated to agents.

Sponsorship can only be delegated to those who have legitimization power; therefore, it cannot be delegated to agents. As change agents, we can be given implementation responsibilities, but we should never be asked to sanction change.

• “Initiating” and “sustaining” sponsors can never do each other’s jobs.

Initiating sponsors have the organizational power to start the change process. Sustaining sponsors can maintain the change process because they have the logistical, economic, and political proximity to the targets.

• Cascading sponsorship must be established and maintained.

A direct line of active sponsorship must cascade from the initiating sponsors to the various levels of sustaining sponsors, or the change effort will fail to achieve its objective(s).

Watch out for bad business.

Bad business is when a sponsor approves a change, displays public support for it, and even pays the financial price needed for various implementation activities, but won’t provide the true support needed to achieve realization. This means he or she is unable or unwilling to properly sanction the change with the targets and/or commit the resources needed and/or sustain the resolve necessary to complete the implementation. If you are a change agent involved with a bad-business project, you should be aware that the issue is not if the endeavor will fail, but when. In such cases, the agents usually receive a disproportionate amount of the blame.

Don’t work harder than your sponsor does.

This guideline does not suggest that the sponsor must put in the same level of effort and number of hours on the project as you do. It means that you should not take on work that belongs to sponsors—sending critical messages, attending important meetings, applying consequences, etc.

You should never mask poor sponsorship by acting as a “pseudo sponsor” when the person (or group) who should be playing that role falters. When sponsors cannot or will not take the proper steps to legitimize and reinforce the targets, it should be taken as a sign that the project is no longer of sufficient importance to proceed. This should be conveyed to the sponsors so they can either adjust their priorities or formally delay/terminate the project.

Don’t use smiles as a success indicator.

When major disruptions occur, it is not necessary for people to like what has happened to them. It is important, however, that they establish new expectations that will enable them to succeed in the unfamiliar environment. Your job isn’t making people feel comfortable during major change—it’s helping them succeed despite their discomfort.

Remember that data is your friend.

A key element of the agent role is to ensure that risks are surfaced early with sponsors (and other decision-makers), are viewed as a normal part of the implementation process rather than as aberrations or something wrong, and are used to bring critical discussions to the table. One implication of this axiom is to educate sponsors about the importance of rewarding all key players who identify, acknowledge, and determine mitigation actions for risks as soon as possible. Alternatively, missing, dodging, or failing to take the proper action to resolve risk quickly will result in negative consequences. (At Conner Partners, we use the phrase “red is good.”)

Remain “passionately neutral.”

The agent’s focus should be on helping generate valid information so the sponsor can make informed decisions. This is best done when you remain “process” centric rather than “content” centric. In other words, whenever possible, you should avoid functioning as a subject matter expert on the substance of what needs to change because it often leads to sponsors not fully trusting the information presented. (“I wonder how much of an “agent spin” has been put on what I’m hearing in order to guide me toward the agent’s agenda on this issue.”)

You should stick to accurately reflecting the circumstances at hand (i.e., data, observations, intuition, etc.) and offering options related to mitigating the problems and exploiting the opportunities. Don’t become overly invested in your sponsor’s decision to the point that you take it personally or withdraw your enthusiasm when the sponsor goes against your advice. A typical passionately neutral statement is, “This is the price you’ll pay for addressing the realization inhibitors and this is the price for failing to do so. The choice is yours, but there is a cost either way.”

Use feedback effectively.

Change agents are responsible for providing sponsors with timely and reliable feedback. It is critical to establish and maintain an “empowered” relationship with sponsors that permits direct, explicit feedback and constructive confrontation.

Clarify what level of change agent expertise you want.

Deep expertise in any complex subject rarely occurs after days, weeks, or even months of study. Becoming a skilled change agent requires study of the fundamentals, the patience to practice the critical skills over and over, the tenacity to follow the principles despite difficulties, and a devotion to the task that will sustain the effort for years.

Everyone has choices to make in life. One of the things that distinguishes successful people is they understand the alternatives available to them, elect an option they can afford, and avoid complaining later that they do not have the rewards of a more advanced choice. Relating this to functioning as a change agent means deciding what level of expertise you want, and doing what’s necessary to achieve that status.

Apply principles, not rules.

Successfully altering the course of a large corporation is an extremely complex task, and rigid rules simply will not address the level of sophistication that is required. Rather than rules, agents should focus their attention on principles of effective execution (such as those offered above). Learning principles instead of rules acknowledges the high levels of ambiguity and complexity inherent to major change.

When the variables are few and control is possible, apply rules; when the variables are many and ambiguity is prevalent, principles are the more prudent guidepost.

This is a long, but certainly not exhaustive, list of some of the more common guidelines for being a successful change practitioner. I’m sure you can come up with more. Which of the ones I’ve listed are the most challenging for you? Which ones are you the most comfortable with?

Go to the beginning of this series.