Inscrivez-vous ou connectez-vous pour rejoindre votre communauté professionnelle.
Change is the single most important element of successful business management today. To remain competitive in increasingly aggressive markets , organizations and individuals in those organizations have to adopt a positive attitude to change. Ignoring or trivializing a changing trend can be costly.
One may ask why change?
Change affects everybody whether they like it or not. Change affects every aspect of life. Taking proactive approach to change is the only way to take charge of the future. Approaching change with an open mind is what is needed.
Actually one can deal with change in three ways. By Resisting, following, or leading! A resister tries to stay put which is impossible in a changing situation. The majority of people and organizations who start by resisting eventually find they have to follow, trying to catch up and if that fails they face competitive disadvantage.
To deal effectively with increasing rates of change, one needs to understand the causes of change. Specific changes in an organization’s internal structure and external markets often derive from wider changes in society, economics or technology. However most changes that occur in an organization are initiated, at least in part from within.
It is hard to implement change management because concerned people wish to maintain status quo. Leadership is about change, but what is a leader to do when faced with ubiquitous resistance? Resistance to change manifests itself in many ways, from foot-dragging and inertia to petty sabotage to outright rebellions. The best tool for leaders of change is to understand the predictable, universal sources of resistance in each situation and then strategize around them. Following are the ten most common sources as identified by expert in change management Rosabeth Moss Kanter of Harward business school
· Loss of control. Change interferes with autonomy and can make people feel that they’ve lost control over their territory. It’s not just political, as in who has the power. Our sense of self-determination is often the first things to go when faced with a potential change coming from someone else. Smart leaders leave room for those affected by change to make choices. They invite others into the planning, giving them ownership.
· Excess uncertainty. If change feels like walking off a cliff blindfolded, then people will reject it. People will often prefer to remain mired in misery than to head toward an unknown. As the saying goes, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.” To overcome inertia requires a sense of safety as well as an inspiring vision. Leaders should create certainty of process, with clear, simple steps and timetables.
· Surprise, surprise! Decisions imposed on people suddenly, with no time to get used to the idea or prepare for the consequences, are generally resisted. It’s always easier to say No than to say Yes. Leaders should avoid the temptation to craft changes in secret and then announce them all at once. It’s better to plant seeds — that is, to sprinkle hints of what might be coming and seek input.
· Everything seems different. Change is meant to bring something different, but how different? We are creatures of habit. Routines become automatic, but change jolts us into consciousness, sometimes in uncomfortable ways. Too many differences can be distracting or confusing. Leaders should try to minimize the number of unrelated differences introduced by a central change. Wherever possible keep things familiar. Remain focused on the important things; avoid change for the sake of change.
· Loss of face. By definition, change is a departure from the past. Those people associated with the last version — the one that didn’t work, or the one that’s being superseded — are likely to be defensive about it. When change involves a big shift of strategic direction, the people responsible for the previous direction dread the perception that they must have been wrong. Leaders can help people maintain dignity by celebrating those elements of the past that are worth honoring, and making it clear that the world has changed. That makes it easier to let go and move on.
· Concerns about competence. Can I do it? Change is resisted when it makes people feel stupid. They might express skepticism about whether the new software version will work or whether digital journalism is really an improvement, but down deep they are worried that their skills will be obsolete. Leaders should over-invest in structural reassurance, providing abundant information, education, training, mentors, and support systems. A period of overlap, running two systems simultaneously, helps ease transitions.
· More work. Here is a universal challenge. Change is indeed more work. Those closest to the change in terms of designing and testing it are often overloaded, in part because of the inevitable unanticipated glitches in the middle of change, per “Kanter’s Law” that “everything can look like a failure in the middle.” Leaders should acknowledge the hard work of change by allowing some people to focus exclusively on it, or adding extra perqs for participants (meals? valet parking? massages?). They should reward and recognize participants — and their families, too, who often make unseen sacrifices.
· Ripple effects. Like tossing a pebble into a pond, change creates ripples, reaching distant spots in ever-widening circles. The ripples disrupt other departments, important customers, people well outside the venture or neighborhood, and they start to push back, rebelling against changes they had nothing to do with that interfere with their own activities. Leaders should enlarge the circle of stakeholders. They must consider all affected parties, however distant, and work with them to minimize disruption.
· Past resentments. The ghosts of the past are always lying in wait to haunt us. As long as everything is steady state, they remain out of sight. But the minute you need cooperation for something new or different, the ghosts spring into action. Old wounds reopen, historic resentments are remembered — sometimes going back many generations. Leaders should consider gestures to heal the past before sailing into the future.
· Sometimes the threat is real. Now we get to true pain and politics. Change is resisted because it can hurt. When new technologies displace old ones, jobs can be lost; prices can be cut; investments can be wiped out. The best thing leaders can do when the changes they seek pose significant threat is to be honest, transparent, fast, and fair. For example, one big layoff with strong transition assistance is better than successive waves of cuts.
Although leaders can’t always make people feel comfortable with change, they can minimize discomfort. Diagnosing the sources of resistance is the first step toward good solutions. And feedback from resistors can even be helpful in improving the process of gaining acceptance for change.
By getting your people policies right when planning change , one can expect reduced or least resistance. Dealing with negative aspects of change is a great test of a manager ‘s motivating skills. In cases such as redundancies, people’s living standards, security, sense of community and self esteem may suffer. Those kept on may also feel vulnerable about these issues. Prepare people by communicating as fully as possible so that need for change is understood and by making plans for counseling and coaching for new jobs as required. It is important to stress that change will improve people’s chances of realizing their individual potential either by developing a current job or moving on to a better one. Make sure the plan will deliver on that promise for those who stay. Try to provide support for those who leave
As a leader wishing to effect changes you must ask yourself
· Have I involved everyone who should be involved?
· Do I and my colleagues really believe that involvement is essential for successful change?
· Has the case for change been communicated and understood ?
· Have people had the necessary training and preparation?
· Have management layers been kept to a minimum?
· Have I ensured that everybody knows what benefits are expected from a change?
· Can I answer everybody’s vital question ”what is in it for me” ?
· Will the planned changes genuinely make people’s job more interesting?
· What would I want done for me if my job was at stake?
The subject is vast one and for want of time and space, I hope the above suffices for the moment.
Mr. J. Jocson, Thanks for providing me with an opportunity to revisit this important subject.
Good luck
Amrut did a brilliant job in explaining change management.
In a brief statement, change disrupts the status quo, may change power structures, and finally, has not been tried yet on the target organisation, hence there would be lots of uncertainty regarding whether it would work or not. The bigger the change is, the higher risk and uncertainty faced, the more resistance you will face from other people who know the current situation, and are able to operate it very well.
There is a term Antagonism exists in organization which usually resist users to accept/adapt change. Mostly Infromation Technology solution implementers are considered to be Antagonist.
This is an art to understand, mostly mutli million dollar projects fail at the stage of change implementation. Before entering into change a proper strategy is to be devise which drill down till the lowest level about the feeling of this change will bring in.
The larger the organization will be the antagonism. The one must com up with implementing feeling's which bring more energies in staff likewise that this product will bring in more productivity and solve the current prevailing issues of the system. The day when feeling of reduction of staff due to system will maker more stronger the antagonism. I think training, awareness, brush-up sessions with staff of all categories give success to change management plan - Its more rather Psychological instead technical!
The toughest part of change management is getting people to support the change. almost always changes benefit some people and not the others. Factoring all types of human responses in the project plan is the most difficult concept.
People usually feer change either because they perceive a negative impact of the change on themselves ir because they don't understand its impact and feering the unkown is a typical human nature.
The most effective approach to handle that is to undestand thier feers and eliminate the erroneous ones and compensate for the valid ones.
The article:
The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective
gives an excellent analytical perspective regarding social behaviour towards change.
I am very agree with Amrut Desai, he said all things I want to say, very professional answer.
