January 28, 2009

How to manage change at work effectively

Companies that are undergoing a programme of transition potentially face a series of problems and pitfalls

Source: Timesonline
Fay Schopen


Be ready
1 Change is a constant part of life, so prepare for it. Michael Jarrett, the author of Changeability: Why Some Companies Are Ready For Change and Others Aren't, argues that people who are prepared to embrace change have “changeability”, a key predictor of success. Build changeability into your company by cultivating strong leadership, talents and processes that match the requirements of the marketplace.
Have a purpose
2 “Ask as many people as you can why change is planned and if they hesitate or say ‘because everyone else is doing it', alarm bells should ring,” Richard Crouch, the head of HR and organisational development at Somerset County Council and a board member of The Public Sector People Managers' Association, said. He recommends that managers “acid test” reasons for change: good ones could be better service delivery or modernisation.
Act holistically
3 Managing change is akin to performing several different medical procedures at the same time, Jeanie Daniel Duck, a senior partner and managing director at The Boston Consulting Group, writes in the essay Managing Change: The Art of Balancing. “Each operation is a success, but the patient dies of shock.”
“You cannot do something in one part of the organisation without changing all parts of the organisation,” Nick James, an organisational development specialist, said. Even things that seem small, such as changing the way in which employees log their time, can affect the whole company.
Think long-term
4 “The whole process of integration could take several years, or some aspects of it may never happen,” Margaret Denton, a change management specialist who worked with ExxonMobil after their merger in 1999, said. “When people introduced themselves to others in the organisation, they always identified where they were from, Exxon or Mobil. They never said ExxonMobil.”
Look within
5 “In today's economic climate, you can't simply throw money at the problem or hire lots of people to effect change for you. It's like Manchester City Football Club: They want to buy loads of footballers, but they're hoping they're just going to turn up,” Steve Bicknell, the co-founder of Crelos, a business psychology consultancy, said, “[but] you've usually got a lot of people in-house that know the answers.”
Listen
6 “Don't just push information at people, encourage them. Involve them, ask what they're concerned about - and follow up,” Ms Denton said.
“The quality of communication is probably the most significant factor in whether or not change will succeed,” Miles Teasdale, the director of YSC, a business psychology consultancy, said.
Cultivate urgency
7 There is too much complacency in the workplace, according to the change management expert and author of A Sense of Urgency, John P. Kotter. He urges managers to fight this with action. “Demonstrate urgency. I know a manager who is brilliant at this. He will end a meeting by saying ‘This is what I'm going to do in the next seven days as a result of this meeting', then asks what other people are going to do.”
Expect emotion
8 Change can be a “fraught process”, Mr James said. He pointed out that many models used to predict how people will react to change are the same as those used to help people who are grieving. For many people, change will feel like a loss and they may react angrily before they can accept new processes and situations.
One size does not fit all
9 There are different types of change, Dr Jarrett said. One style he dubs “turnaround” and is seen when a new leader arrives and implements large organisational changes, such as the recent appointment of Edward Liddy, chief executive of AIG. Another model is to make lots and lots of smaller, incremental changes.
Help staff take control
10 Anthony Greenfield, author of The 5 Forces of Change, points to the television series Jamie's School Dinners as an example of buy-in. On the programme, children who refused to try healthy food were given cooking lessons. “They really got their hands on the issue. It's the same for everyone in any organisation - if you involve people, they will buy into it more,” Mr Greenfield said.
The five stages of grief
Although originally written by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross to describe bereavement, this cycle is used to describe emotional reactions to all types of change or trauma
1 Denial: refusal of the facts or reality of the situation
2 Anger: this can be with themselves or others close to them
3 Bargaining: people seek to negotiate a compromise
4 Depression: sadness, fear and uncertainty as change is accepted
5 Acceptance: emotional detachment and objectivity

Change-For Better Or Worse

Change-For Better Or Worse

CCT: 01/07/09 · 2:30 am :: posted by Robert

"Change" is the fashionable word of the day. Change to what? Nobody asks that simple question often enough to get an answer.

Why? -- Because most people don't want one. They simply want to discharge the "ins" and replace them with the "outs." Then they try to dignify their decision by attaching to it an uplifting word.

Time has passed since the election and the meaning of the word "change" is beginning to take shape.

Let's check a wee bit of history before going further.

Franklin Roosevelt took office (1933) during the Great Depression when national debt was $19 billion. FDR went on a spending splurge devoted to federal projects that were supposed to put people back to work. The deficit increased to $34 billion at the end of his first term (1936). The unemployment rate in that year was 19 percent. His federal programs had failed.

It was war with Hitler, not "change" by FDR that ended the Great Depression.

Fast-forward to 1960 and another president who wanted "change." John Kennedy was the young champion of the day. He was assassinated in 1963 and a like-minded but more legislatively skillful Lyndon Johnson succeeded him.

The Vietnam War was in its infancy. The cost of Defense under both men increased by 11 percent -- revenue, by 25 percent. In other words, the economy supported the war -- there was no need for a deficit. Yet there was one. Why? Because the cost of the newly-created Welfare State increased by 41 percent.

What was the reason given for the deficit of $21 billion? War!

The Vietnam War escalated under Lyndon Johnson (1965-68). The cost of Defense increased by 25 percent; revenue, by 33 percent. Again, the economy supported the war; there was no need for a deficit. But there was one. Why? Because the cost of Johnson's Great Society programs went up 46 percent.

What was the reason given for the $39 billion deficit? War!

When Johnson left office, the Welfare State was buried deeply in the federal budget, growing each year like a weed in an un-watered lawn. The disparity between its growth and the growth in revenue continued. Deficits, once a rarity in the U.S. except in time of war or major economic problems, became commonplace. Debt grew, grew and grew again.

There was always a convenient excuse -- war, energy, etc. But these were not the causes of repeated deficits. Excessive government spending on the Welfare State was the root cause. And nobody dared to say so -- still don't.

Now a new president wants "change." And the change he seeks has a familiar ring. Like FDR, he seeks to address current economic problems with bromides from the 1930s -- infrastructure spending. And like LBJ he wants to create a Great Society.

True, infrastructure projects are overdue in the United States. They have been cancelled, delayed and aborted over the years mostly for the same reason -- lack of funds. Why? Because the unspoken priority of government for the past half century has been the creation and protection of the Welfare State. Activating these projects now may have modest economic impact, but they are not the answer to the major causes of the recession.

A new smokescreen is being spread behind which the Welfare State will be strengthened once again. The headlines will be bridges, roads, tunnels and Green jobs. But in the "recession"aid- proposals, look also for nationalized health insurance and a healthy package of give-a-ways.

At the end of it all, the assistance package as advertised, except for that which is directed to financial markets, will suffer the same fate as FDR's did. The economy will continue to struggle until time heals it, or an enlightened savior appears.

Government and debt will be larger; the power of the U.S. will dwindle. The end of an era of greatness will be at hand.