Credibility gaps often exist between us as change practitioners and our sponsors. Many factors contribute to these gaps, and I’ll explore several in a future post. Here, I’d like to focus on a common one: Many sponsors see us as indiscriminate when suggesting they allocate significant amounts of time and attention to implementing change initiatives. They believe we think ALL initiatives are critical and in need of our skills.

Let’s not argue about whether this indictment is justified, or whether you personally would ever create such an impression. My point is, too many sponsors hold this view about too many of us change practitioners and as a result, they see us as tactical players (have hammer, looking for nail) rather than as trusted advisors capable of determining when implementation assistance is genuinely called for.

I have some thoughts and ideas on the subject I’ll express here in the hope that they prompt you to share some of your considerations and perspectives as well.

We enhance our credibility with sponsors when we are cautious about recommending expenditures of time, effort, money, etc. on implementation assistance for new initiatives. But how can we know where to draw the line?

DETERMINING WHEN CHANGE INITIATIVES REQUIRE SPECIAL ATTENTION

An all-too-common frustration heard from practitioners: “This change initiative is in crisis, but I can’t get anyone to listen to me.”

It helps to get the sponsor’s attention if we can define exactly what we mean by a project being “in crisis.” What I try to do is keep it simple—to me, initiatives that are really important and are in danger of not being successfully executed are in crisis. As such, they require significantly more consideration and resources than projects of less consequence, or those that will succeed without much difficulty.

Typically, the more an initiative’s makeup reflects being “in crisis,” the greater the likelihood of failure, the lower the quality of results, and the longer it will take to reach intended outcomes. To compensate for these risks, sponsors who succeed with change typically allot more attention/resources (mindshare, knowledge, skill, money, people, etc.) to these endeavors.

The most reliable way of determining whether a change initiative is in crisis is to measure its “Degree of Difficulty.” To explain, let’s start by considering three implementation realities:

• Transformational change is more difficult to execute than incremental shifts.
• Actually achieving the intended purpose is more difficult than installing new skills, technology, processes, or procedures.
• Business imperatives are more difficult to fulfill than “good ideas.”

These realities lead to three corresponding questions:

• How much change does the initiative represent?
• What results do you have to deliver to keep your promises?
• How crucial is the success of this initiative relative to all the other major initiatives in place or planned?

We’ll explore these three questions in depth in the next post.

Key Terms:
(Locate additional terms in the Change Thinking Glossary)

Sponsor: Individual or group having the power to sanction a change
Agent: Individual or group facilitating and/or execution of implementation plans
Target: Individual or group who must actually change
Advocate: Individual or group who wants change, but does not have sufficient power to sanction it