In recent posts, I referred to Gleicher’s Formula which can be used to calculate readiness for change within a group or organization and then examined the “D” variable of the formula. That formula is:

C = (DVF) > R

and those first two blog posts I am referencing are “Who is Ready for this Change?” and “Assessing “D” = Degree of Dissatisfaction with the Status Quo”.

In today’s post, I want to now focus on the “V” variable in this equation – the “Vision of what is possible” or what many call the “future state”. What are the traps executive change agents fall into in regard to creating this future state? What are the “must haves” in terms of creating the future state picture and description? What are the common mistakes surrounding communicating with others and engaging others in embracing this future state?

Common Traps in Creating the Future State
There are several common traps that you might fall into without deliberate effort around creating a “future state” or the “vision of what is possible”.

  1. You may simply omit doing this and have no defined future state. Well, at some level you know what you want to see, but you have not fully captured this in any form which can be communicated clearly and that can be measured.
  2. You may have a poorly defined and overly ambiguous future state. For example, you might believe that certain changes in the sales structure or processes are needed to generate more sales. However, you may only say “generate more sales” as the future state. This is likely going to be inadequate. A better “V” definition may have been specific results that represent the future state which give you the greatest opportunity for increased sales      (e.g., having more information for each customer in the CRM to increase cross-selling opportunities, more time for each salesperson to make calls, integrating past order history so that sales can see historical data, patterns, timing, etc to more intelligently sell to existing customers). Those are future state items that are a vision of what is possible… vs. “we will sell more”.
  3. Your “vision of the future state” may simply be too large and broad to be effective. At some point, the average employee just turns on their “BS” meter when they hear really broad, all-encompassing vision statements      about how the company is going to change unless you are extremely artful in tying that directly to a few (FEW) specific strategies and clear outcomes. Likewise, even in smaller change initiatives you can run a risk of trying to do too much at one time and should consider breaking your “vision of future state” into smaller steps. We will address this more in the next post regarding the “F” (first steps) portion of the equation.

The “Must Haves” for Creating the Future State 
Having examined some of the possible traps one might fall into while creating this picture of the future state or “what is possible”, I want to now turn my attention to defining the “must have” elements you should consider when creating a future state.

I like the original description of V as “vision of what is possible” because I think this is far more descriptive vs. just saying “future state”. When you are going to invest so much time, energy, and money into creating a plan to bring about change, it is just as important to expend resources in helping everyone involved “see what is possible in this new future state”. Here are some of the key elements of a future state that I believe you can incorporate to ensure better success.

  1. Your future state should not only be tied to revenue or profit. If your only vision of a      future state is expressed in terms of some financial outcome, then you will have trouble with this resonating across the board unless you mean that everyone involved is going to get raise in this future state. Seriously, an overall general awareness should be that if your future state only seems to have profit, P/E, top management wins, without specific outcomes that resonate with the average employee, you may find more resistance moving forward.
  2. Your future state should be specific about what kinds of behaviors/actions will be different when you achieve this future state. Your future state should be specific about the new value benefits for the company and any specific groups or individuals.
  3. Your  future state should be specific about the kinds of behaviors/actions that you no longer want to see in the organization. This may sound negative, but you can be creative and weave this into the future state picture. This might be the elimination of a business. This might be the elimination of certain activities that were inefficient or even disruptive. This might be      the elimination of certain positions. It is important to be transparent to create the right expectations on what you desire (above) and what is no longer desired or included in the future state.

Common Communication Mistakes
First, let’s consider a related activity, the activity of Strategic Planning. In evaluating the results of strategic planning (lots of research on this topic), one of the most common reasons for failure is “employees did not know about or understand the strategic plan”. Seriously, it is not uncommon for organizations to spend a great deal of time, money, and energy on a strategic plan only to fail at “truly communicating” their plan. The key here is “truly communicating”. Many do publish a note, hold a town hall meeting, write a blog post, or perhaps even create a few posters. However, a good portion of companies also fail to consistently communicate, integrate the plan into regular team meetings, seek feedback to help bring clarity to the plan, etc.

This is relevant because given the role that “V” plays in creating the momentum or readiness for change, the ability to clearly communicate this is simply imperative or it would be like the “V” simply does not exist. There is no vision of a future state unless it is shared, whether fully accepted or not.

Here are the most common mistakes made when communicating the “V” portion of the equation:

  1. Not communicating at all beyond the leadership team.
  2. Relying on top-down communication from the leadership team to their various groups      and then (a) not providing thoughtful communications, and (b) this communication not consistently happening in all group. It is very common for one group within the company to get good communication and another group to say they heard nothing or even a different or diluted message.
  3. Not having a well thought out message that addresses some of the anticipated “D” discussed and fails to clearly communicate a picture of the future state and the value of this future state (back to the “we’re going to survive”, or “we’re going to generate higher revenues” without really identifying a concrete picture of what will be different and why this is      valuable).
  4. The final mistake is creating a message, but that message sounding like all the leaders are just drinking the same cool-aid and creating yet another flowery, unattainable, future state where Dorothy, Toto, the Wizard, and Munchkins that all live happily ever after. What I am saying is, keep it real and communicate “with” people and not “at” them. Be open to feedback, in fact, welcome feedback, and mitigate natural fear of change with open and honest communication.

Summary
Clearly constructing and communication a “vision of what is possible” or the future state of your organization or a particular part of your organization is the most significant element in this equation for measuring readiness for change. Whether you create this vision within a small leadership group or in fact, involved a larger portion of your organization in bottom-up strategic planning activities, your ability to define this vision clearly and communicate this vision effectively will greatly influence the momentum you see for change vs. resistance within your organization.