OCI #33: Triangles and Squares
How the geometry of change role relationships affects implementation
Change Roles
Most of us are very familiar with the different roles that are involved in organizational change initiatives. But we don’t always think about how the positioning of these roles in the organization’s structure affects the process of change.
To lay a foundation for this discussion, here are some brief definitions of key change roles:1
Target: A person whose adoption of new mindsets and behaviors is important to the success of a change initiative.2
Sponsor: A person who has the authority to hold a particular group of targets accountable for their adoption of the change.
Agent: A person who is responsible for one or more elements of the planning and implementation of a change.
These roles can overlap, of course, but it’s helpful to think of them as separate aspects of how people operate during change.
Role Relationships
Two role relationships are particularly important for successful change.
Sponsor-Target: Each target is accountable to one or more sponsors. This is typically a reporting relationship, but under certain circumstances it may involve some other form of accountability such as a matrix relationship, a project-specific goal, or a deliverable commitment. The sponsor creates the conditions for target success by setting clear expectations, providing resources, listening to concerns, removing obstacles, and linking outcomes to effective performance.
Agent-Target: Each target is supported by one or more agents. Agents support target success by orchestrating the change process, facilitating engagement, developing knowledge and skills, planning and delivering communication, evaluating progress, and coordinating with other agents and sponsors.
The organizational positioning of sponsors and agents can affect change success. Here are two configurations to be aware of, and some strategies for making sure they work effectively.
Triangles
Triangular role relationships occur when agents and targets work for a common sponsor. They may be peers, members of two departments with a common leader, consultants who come in to work with employees, or another similar arrangement.
Example: In a school system undertaking a culture change, bus drivers are one of the primary target groups because of the important role they play in the daily experience of students. The transportation director is the sponsor for this group of targets, and two staff members within the department are designated as agents to help the drivers learn about, practice, and adopt the cultural goal of “putting students first.”
Potential Challenges
Because sponsors typically have many competing priorities, they often ask agents to take the lead in communicating with targets and organizing change-related plans and activities. Because most agents have a “can-do” attitude and a desire to help, they frequently jump in and start working.
Unfortunately, this puts the agents in a difficult position when they encounter push-back or low engagement from the targets. Lacking the formal authority to hold the targets accountable, they lean on informal sources of power and influence to get people engaged. This can work as long as things are easy, but when there are unexpected problems, conflicting priorities, or other obstacles, change progress may stall, with everyone becoming frustrated and exhausted.
Solutions
There are two basic solutions to make triangles work; they both require decisions and actions from the sponsor.
The sponsor can clearly establish the expectation that although the agents are there to help, the sponsor will be holding targets responsible for effectively achieving change objectives. The sponsor then needs to monitor progress and enforce accountability, while providing support and reinforcement as needed to the agents.
Example: At a quarterly meeting of bus drivers, the transportation director introduces the culture change initiative, describes its importance, and defines how “putting students first” will be incorporated into the annual evaluation process. The director introduces the agents, describes their role in supporting the change, and sets expectations about next steps and objectives.
The sponsor can delegate authority to the agents to evaluate target adoption of the change and to apply positive and negative consequences accordingly. This is a less satisfactory solution than the first one, because it puts the agents in the position of being both a coach/supporter and a judge/evaluator, which is a hard combination to pull off. It also requires that the sponsor support the decisions of the agents rather than undermining or second-guessing them.
Squares
Square role relationships occur when agents and targets report to different leaders. This is very common when a change is initiated in an internal function such as HR or IT, but the impact of the change is on employees in customer-facing departments such as Sales or Customer Service.
Example: A hospital decides to implement a new medical records system that will be used by all doctors, nurses, and other medical staff. The change is led by the CIO, who brings in a team of consultants from outside the organization to assist the internal staff in the planning and rollout. Many of the targets ultimately report up to the Chief Medical Officer, who is responsible for the quality of care.
Potential Challenges
In square configurations, the budget and accountability for the initiative usually rest with one leader (L1) while the successful delivery of results requires significant involvement from at least one other leader (L2). (If there are multiple groups of targets whose participation is critical, each one is potentially a separate square—I’ll focus on a single one here.) Although it is L2 that actually occupies the sponsor role—because they can hold the targets accountable—L1 is often the named “sponsor” of the initiative.
L1 typically deploys resources (agents) throughout the organization to train people in the new approach or system, and may also send communications to the various target groups to explain the importance of the change and lay out the timeline and expectations for the implementation process. This is often enough to get things started, but depending on how busy the targets are, and their level of motivation to make the change, they may not make the effort to become fully and proactively engaged with the agents. In addition, L2 is likely to be focused on other high-priority objectives, limiting the time and energy the targets can put into the change.
As a side effect, the agents may become frustrated at what they see as a lack of commitment or urgency among the targets, and L2 may become increasingly frustrated with the agents and L1. This can lead to a spiral of delays, aggravation, and a focus on “installing” the change rather than realizing its full benefits.
Solutions
The most important relationship in making square relationships work is the one between L1 & L2. There are three steps to setting up a successful square:
L1 needs to help L2 understand and accept the role of sponsor, making sure they are committed to doing all the things outlined under the Sponsor-Target relationship above. Because L2 does not report to L1, this requires L1 to use informal sources of influence, building a partnership in which each of them benefits. (Sometimes it’s necessary to engage the next level of leadership to bring L2 on board.)
Example: The CIO meets with the CMO and outlines the need and plan for the medical records system, and the importance of the medical staff fully engaging with the change. The CMO raises concerns about impacts to patient service, buy-in from physicians, timelines for staff training, and the need to plan around a significant hospital accreditation visit. They do some creative brainstorming, agree to some adjustments, and set up a recurring meeting to discuss progress. They also sit down with the CEO to make some adjustments to both of their annual objectives to accommodate this initiative.
L2 begins to operate as a sponsor, meeting with the targets to outline the change and its importance and establish the expectation that although the agents from outside the department are there to help, the sponsor will be holding targets responsible for effectively achieving change objectives. As in the triangular relationship, the sponsor also needs to monitor progress and enforce accountability, while making sure the agents have what they need to be successful.
Example: The CMO meets with the medical department heads, director of nursing, and other key leaders among the medical staff and, with support from the CIO’s team, briefs them on the initiative. The CMO clearly communicates support for the project, and charters each leader as a sustaining sponsor, holding them accountable for successful progress of the change. The group periodically meets to discuss progress, identify obstacles and challenges, and brainstorm solutions that the CMO carries back to the CIO.
L1 prepares the agents to work effectively with the targets, keeping L2’s needs and priorities in mind.
Example: The CIO meets with the consultants and implementation team, bringing in representatives from the medical staff to help the agents understand the most critical needs and concerns. The team meeds periodically meet to discuss insights, share effective practices, and raise concerns that the CIO can take back to the CMO. The CIO evaluates the initiative using a scorecard that balances technical progress with patient service and staff satisfaction.
Diagnosing Role Configurations
It’s helpful to identify triangles and squares early, because they’re much easier to address at that point. Here is an overview of the process:
Begin by listing the targets—the groups and individuals who need to operate differently for the change to achieve results.
Identify the sponsor(s) for each target group. If there are multiple levels of sponsorship, work your way up the spine to identify the senior sponsors.
For each group of targets, identify the primary agents who will be supporting them. Determine whether those agents report to the same person/department as the targets (creating a triangle), or a different person/department (creating a square).
Once you’ve identified triangles and squares, work with the sponsors and agents involved to make sure they are ready to help the targets succeed.
These role definitions, and the discussion that follows, are based on concepts introduced by Daryl Conner in Managing at the Speed of Change. I spent 15+ years as his research director, and continue to appreciate the strong foundation he laid. This article represents my own perspective on one key element of this work.
I know this term doesn’t ring true for everyone. I’ve chosen to use it here because I haven’t found an alternative that as clearly captures the sense of this role as being the focal point of change efforts.