Strategies For Re-balancing Your
Network:
Accelerating Strategic Change
Chris Newell, Psy.D

Senior Research Fellow

CONFI...
The Challenge
 40 year history of a branch structure – 57 offices
 Culture “ What happens in the branch stays in the bra...
Working in A Matrix Structure

Branch Structure

Matrix Structure

Work in the system

Work on the system

Internal focus:...
Train Wreck – my view

The Launch at Boston University

October 22, 2013

4
My Challenge
 How do I show the leadership that we have huge risks in
executing on this strategy?
 Who listens to HR any...
Train Wreck: ONA results

The Launch at Boston University

October 22, 2013

6
Overall Network Metrics

Metric

Description

Target

Keane

Density

Comments

% of existing
relationships (out
of 100%) ...
The Network

Benchmarks
Density = 20%
Cohesion = 2.0
Centrality (IN) =15
Network Measures
Density = 8.17%
Cohesion = 2.42
...
The Hierarchy Dominates

Hierarchical Network

Position
= Vice President
= Group/Area VP
= Managing Director
= Director
= ...
The Theory

 De-layer overly connected people
 Identify brokers, overloaded points
 Replicate behaviors of those centra...
The Practice
 We stopped all leadership training and instead focused on sessions to problem
solve and practice working on...
Network

Benchmarks
Density = 20%
Cohesion = 2.0
Centrality (IN) =15

Network Measures
Density = 9.45%
Cohesion = 2.48
Cen...
Hierarchy: 6 Months later
Position
= Vice President
= Director
= Function Manager
= Department Manager
= Sales Rep
= Clien...
Results 6 months later
Overall Network Comparison:
Metric

Description

Keane 1st ONA
(n=123)

Keane 2nd ONA
(n=145)

Dens...
Feeling Close vs. Being Close
“Feel Close”
Where are you?

We’re right here.

Client

Pureplay

Videoconferencing

Western...
Bring the Strategy to the Desktop.

To live the strategy every day, employees need an Enterprise Desktop.
Keane success

P...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

CISummit 2013: Chris Newell, Strategies for Re-Balancing Your Network to Accelerate a Large Strategic Change

548 views
407 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
548
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CISummit 2013: Chris Newell, Strategies for Re-Balancing Your Network to Accelerate a Large Strategic Change

  1. 1. Strategies For Re-balancing Your Network: Accelerating Strategic Change Chris Newell, Psy.D Senior Research Fellow CONFIDENTIALITY © 2007 The Institute for Global Work (IGW), The concepts and methodologies contained herein are proprietary to The Institute for Global Work. Duplication, reproduction or disclosure of information in this document without the express written permission of IGW i s prohibited.
  2. 2. The Challenge  40 year history of a branch structure – 57 offices  Culture “ What happens in the branch stays in the branch”  Lack of trust to use any resources outside the branch office  Limited re-use of assets  One Keane strategy announced – moving to solution sets and business lines  This means each branch loses some autonomy and must trust “service line” leaders with their customers  Do we understand the risk from a people perspective in this shift?  Do we understand the impact of “breaking up” the insular nature of the branch offices?  Are their ways to understand how to build trust across the enterprise to sell in this fashion?
  3. 3. Working in A Matrix Structure Branch Structure Matrix Structure Work in the system Work on the system Internal focus: Focus on where we do the work External focus: Focus on where we create value Lead by title/position Lead by influence Controlled environment Empowered environment
  4. 4. Train Wreck – my view The Launch at Boston University October 22, 2013 4
  5. 5. My Challenge  How do I show the leadership that we have huge risks in executing on this strategy?  Who listens to HR anyway?  What is a way to show them the risk and develop a plan of action?  Conducted a Network Analysis with our top/key 150 people  The results were stunning – and it created an opening to try to build and rebalance the network The Launch at Boston University October 22, 2013 5
  6. 6. Train Wreck: ONA results The Launch at Boston University October 22, 2013 6
  7. 7. Overall Network Metrics Metric Description Target Keane Density Comments % of existing relationships (out of 100%) within a group 20% 8% Below-average density, as some people are highly connected and others are very removed. Cohesion Average # of steps to reach any other person in the group 2.0 2.4 Individuals are likely to call a friend and then a friend of a friend in the pursuit of desired information. There are opportunities at Keane to get the peripheral employees more connected. Centrality Average # of relationships per person 15 9.9 Individuals can typically maintain 10-15 relationships at this level of interaction. The mean centrality is below average. There seems to be a wide distribution of ties, with some employees very wellconnected and many on the periphery.
  8. 8. The Network Benchmarks Density = 20% Cohesion = 2.0 Centrality (IN) =15 Network Measures Density = 8.17% Cohesion = 2.42 Centrality (IN) =9.967 Top 10 Central People Dropped Density reduced by 26%
  9. 9. The Hierarchy Dominates Hierarchical Network Position = Vice President = Group/Area VP = Managing Director = Director = Director Service Delivery = Client Executive = Sales Rep = Manager Network Measures Density = 8.17% Cohesion = 2.42 Centrality (IN) =9.967
  10. 10. The Theory  De-layer overly connected people  Identify brokers, overloaded points  Replicate behaviors of those central to the network in order to shift the information load  Re-allocate decision making  Minimize inefficiencies that result when better-connected people depart and leave a hole in the network.  Integrate peripheral people  Identify marginalize voices  What roles are represented on the edge of the network?  What are the major impediments to keeping more people from being central  Identify points in the information flow network where greater collaboration would yield effectiveness and efficiency benefits
  11. 11. The Practice  We stopped all leadership training and instead focused on sessions to problem solve and practice working on solutions together  Developed regional sessions with the right people in the room sharing the new solutions and having “live” practice sessions with “customers.  We set teams to compete on new deals and expanding old deals  We designed it to be intense, competitive, real life as possible, and to build them as new teams  Because sales was on the edge of the network with high turnover– we revamped how we oriented them, trained, mentored, and connected them  We found the brokers and made them champions of the communities of practice  We built a knowledge and collaboration systems to support tacit and explicit knowledge exchange. The Launch at Boston University October 22, 2013 11
  12. 12. Network Benchmarks Density = 20% Cohesion = 2.0 Centrality (IN) =15 Network Measures Density = 9.45% Cohesion = 2.48 Centrality (IN) =13.607 Top 10 Central People Dropped Density reduced by 18%
  13. 13. Hierarchy: 6 Months later Position = Vice President = Director = Function Manager = Department Manager = Sales Rep = Client Executive = Other = No answer Network Measures Density = 9.45% Cohesion = 2.48 Centrality (IN) =13.607
  14. 14. Results 6 months later Overall Network Comparison: Metric Description Keane 1st ONA (n=123) Keane 2nd ONA (n=145) Density % of existing relationships (out of 100%) within a group 8% (Target=20%) 9.5% (Target =20%) Cohesion Average # of steps to reach any other person in the group 2.4 (Target=2) 2.5 (Target=2) Average # of relationships per person 9.8 (Target=15) 13.6 (Target=15) Centrality Network Comparison Consisting of Employees Completing Both Surveys: Keane 1st ONA (n=46) Keane 2nd ONA (n=46) % of existing relationships (out of 100%) within a group 8.5% 11.16% Average # of steps to reach any other person in the group 3.152 Metric Description Density Cohesion Centrality Average # of relationships per person Greater than 18% improvement in density from the 1st to the 2nd ONA, despite larger network size Greater than 38% improvement in centrality from the 1st to the 2nd ONA, despite larger network size Greater than 31% improvement in density from the same sample from 1st to the 2nd ONA 12% improvement in cohesion 3.8 2.77 5.02 32% improvement in centrality Effective and Very Effective
  15. 15. Feeling Close vs. Being Close “Feel Close” Where are you? We’re right here. Client Pureplay Videoconferencing Western Hemisphere Eastern Hemisphere Integrated collaboration across Keane’s Information Value Chain 1 2 3 4 5 Find the Deal Win the Deal Deliver the Project Document the Project Share with Keane SALESFORCE.COM PURSUIT POST-PROJECT PORTAL/INTRANET Client The Launch at Boston University PROJECT “Be Close” Keane October 22, 2013 15
  16. 16. Bring the Strategy to the Desktop. To live the strategy every day, employees need an Enterprise Desktop. Keane success Project success My business success CEO President, North American Global Practices Vision, Strategy, Direction PM-SDM VP/GM Responsible for Delivery BL , Region , Vertical Tasks Support Keane Information Worker This is where I get information… …and where I do my work: • OKT company strategy • Deliver pursuits and projects • Group data, news & announcements • Report time & expenses • SME/COP thought leadership • Interact with the customer • Knowledge assets • Leverage my extended team The Launch at Boston University October 22, 2013 16

×