|
Perhaps you’ve been
working with your current organization for a few years and you’re fairly
certain you have a clear understanding of who is influential around the
place. Your understanding may not be as crystal clear as you think.
A technique that I
find extremely useful in identifying where the true power base lies within
an organization is called relationship mapping. It’s a process that has
been around for many years; however, I don’t find that many Human Resource
professionals employ it. Please consider using this approach to determine
where you – and others – stand so you can engage in what I call the power of
positive politics. In other words, I believe it’s in a person’s best
interests to understand who influential people are and what motivates their
interest and commitment.
The best way for me
to describe relationship mapping is to provide an example. Let’s say that
you want to introduce and implement a multi-rater feedback process into your
organization. If your objective is for this process to flow from the top
levels and eventually to the supervisory level, you may believe that the
only buy-in you’ll require for success is top-level commitment. That may or
may not be a correct assumption.
In relationship
mapping, the approach is first to identify the key players related to the
target objective – in this case, implementation of a multi-rater feedback
process. The next step is to meet with these key players to discover their
degree of influence within the organization in general and specifically
within the areas where you wish to employ the “360” intervention. The third
step is to assess the stability of the power base for these influential
people and the implications for your target objective. Then you’re in a
position to effectively establish a strategy for implementation, complete
with concrete tactics to successfully leverage the impact of key players.
To get more specific,
let me use an example of how I used relationship mapping when I was an HR
practitioner in a private-sector organization in the Midwest. I had
conducted best practices research and became convinced that our organization
could benefit from a multi-rater feedback process. My initial plan was to
approach only the CEO and CFO for their buy-in by providing them with a
proposal that specified why, when, how much, and projected R.O.I. It
occurred to me, though, that I wanted all levels of leadership to become
involved with the multi-rater process – both as recipients and providers of
meaningful feedback. This plan would not succeed if I couldn’t get support
from both official and unofficial leaders across the company.
I started to consider
who key players might be and placed them onto the first relationship map at
the end of this article. The larger the circle, the larger the power base
(as I saw it, based on my tenure with the company).
I began meeting with
the individuals on the relationship map to discuss their experiences with
multi-rater feedback, their perception of how the process would work in our
organization, and people within the company they thought would be able to
either support or block the implementation. These meetings resulted in my
tweaking the relationship map by making some circles larger and adding names
that I hadn’t initially included as influential people (such as Leads, the
level below Supervisors). The second map is the true picture, which was
very different from what I initially envisioned.
Once I understood
clearly where pockets of influence lay, I could develop tactics to either
educate people who might block my objective or call on champions to lift up
my cause. For example, two newly-promoted Supervisors who had been highly
influential as Leads were suspicious of the notion of receiving “reviews”
from hourly staff. These individuals were very supportive of the process,
however, once they understood the confidential nature of the “360” process
and the fact that they would receive coaching from a respected mentor as one
of the by-products. When I talked with Line Managers, it became clear that
these two Leads were people they listened to on many fronts.
I would not have
succeeded in getting the multi-rater process off the ground had I not gone
through the relationship mapping exercise. It takes some practice; however,
I’ve found the groundwork to be extremely beneficial in gaining insights
into where strategic alliances exist, which are often in some unlikely
places.
Relationship Map #1:
Perceived Centers of Influence
The lowest number =
highest level of influence and power.
Relationship Map #2:
Actual Centers of Influence
As you can see in
this more accurate picture, I didn’t have the level of influence regarding
multi-rater feedback that I first thought. The individual who was often my
champion on other matters, the CEO, wouldn’t be as effective as the CFO in
this initiative.
If you have any
questions about relationship mapping or would like to comment on this
article, feel free to cont act me directly at
Linda@gravett.com.
|
