subject: Modification Management - What's The Applicable Leadership Response To Amendment? [print this page] Historically, in times of recession and economic curtail, the organisational response has been "slash and burn" on prices, and to focus on and streamline business processes to squeeze out ever bigger efficiencies.
In the recession of the early 90's, the main focus was all regarding achieving those efficiencies by making and fitting processes that will deliver those efficiencies regardless of the human cost.
You'll recall the amount after the last recession when "Business Method Re-engineering" was very standard? And the focus was always on the method and not the people - and obtaining "buy-in" was once described by a change agent friend of mine as "like trying to urge a bunch of turkeys voting in favour of Christmas"!
Lack of leadership and management failure
All too usually, modification management is essentially reactive to problems that show up on the board's radar instead of driven by any strategic intent or innovation. Usually the 3 main drivers for amendment are:
?Increased efficiency
?Price reduction
?Corporate restructure
Basically this can be all about stripping out value instead of innovation to form added customer value.
The analysis evidence shows that in these conditions, change initiatives are frequently badly thought out, managing modification in the workplace is poorly executed and several modification initiatives do not succeed in achieving their stated objectives. The responsibility for this lies predominantly with the directors and senior management.
Modification management is typically seen by directors and senior management as a sort of "magical box of tricks" that can somehow get them through the side of change they don't like handling, the people problems, so that they can get to the facet they do like handling - which is the money.
This also reflects the all too frequent lack of clarity of what the modification initiative is intended to deliver, and a "business case" for modification based on knee-jerk reactions.
In these conditions, change management is imposed from the top-down, and very little if any consideration is given to the need and business benefit of winning hearts and minds.
Therefore the bulk on the receiving finish of these edicts spend most of their time doing simply enough to "be seen to be wanting" to comply, however essentially, resisting the modification and despising and resenting those "on high" who impose these things on them.
The fact is that all too often, directors and senior managers sacrifice the needs and feelings of their workers within the interests of keeping their shareholders happy.
The appropriate response Therefore briefly, the suitable response to alter is one that truly works! What works is an approach that addresses the basis reason for human resistance to change:
?That looks beyond the organisational "synergies", value reductions and repair improvements, and identifies those folks who can be impacted by the change.
?That totally assesses what those impacts can be.
?That recognises and addresses the emotional issues arising and the private transitions that accompany the organisational change.
?That provides leadership, supported by management processes, and sensible, tactical support that deal directly with these impacts.
?That will thus in ways in which that employment further for the folks within the organisation as they are doing for the organisation.
