Let’s continue to explore what we know about sponsorship, and examine why we don’t always act in ways consistent with what we know. In addition to the axioms I talked about in my last post, there are certain relationship dynamics that offer us reliable ways to interpret events and help the sponsor.

The majority of the strategies used to manage the change process depend on certain relationship configurations that exist between sponsors, agents, and targets. The most common among these configurations can be described as Linear, Triangular, or Square in nature.

Linear—This is the simplest kind of sponsor relationship to understand. An example of this would be when a target reports directly to a sponsor. In linear relationships, sponsors often serve as their own change agents. This kind of target-to-sponsor relationship may not always lead to a successful implementation but it is an easy one to relate to because it is based on a hierarchy or chain of command.

Triangular—In this kind of relationship, both the agent and the target report to a common sponsor but the target does not report to the agent. Here is a classic example of a triangle: The sponsor is in senior management, the agent is in IT or human resources, and the target is in line management. Most triangles are dysfunctional because sponsors try to pass their sponsorship duties to agents. (In this instance, for example, the sponsor might tell the agent it is his or her job to get line management to comply with the new computer system or human resources policy.)

Square—In a Square relationship the target doesn’t report to the agent or agent’s sponsor. If the sponsor of a new initiative has any hope of successful implementation, he or she must convince the target’s sponsor that the change is a business imperative.

What we know to be true is that most large change projects create many sponsors, each involved in one or more of these three relationship configurations. It’s essential that sponsors not only recognize and be prepared to carry out the duties of their role, but also that they understand the configurations in which they operate.

I’m sure you are familiar with these types of relationships and how they worked (or didn’t) for you. If we know what it takes for these relationship configurations to be effective, what keeps us from sometimes pointing it out to our sponsors so that they can respond appropriately? I have some ideas, but I’d like to hear from you.

Next: How to Spot (and Help) a Good Sponsor

Go to the beginning of this series.