Even leaving aside the highly problematic argument that a leader’s role is to change people, the question of change as more generally a leadership function given expression in organizations has its own shortcomings. Most of these are self-inflicted.
It is necessary to note this briefly before taking up the main question. After all, there are a lot of reasons why change programs are implemented in organizations, and most of us have direct experience with how stupid many, if not most, of these are.
They can range from misguidedly insular ivory-tower planning arrogantly imposed from above, to the most carefully and rigorously assessed process engineering assessments which fail to take individual and cultural reactions into account. Of course, there is also the fearsome drive of CEOs or other senior managers to make their mark on arrival, or to leave a legacy prior to their departure.
There are two unfortunate themes here. One is a mystifyingly persistent willful inattention to the real need, if any, for change. The other is a full-steam-ahead heedlessness of the actual instruments and organizational dynamics of change - those are torpedoes that, if ignored, will turn back on you. No amount of leadership bravado will carry you past such obstacles.
A further conundrum here is that it can be genuinely difficult to know if you are succumbing to these shortcomings in your own efforts. And even if you aren’t, the exercise is fraught with opportunities for them to rear yet again before you attain your goal.
With that in mind, when instituting change, should you play the role of leader and cultivate a culture of followers who simply fall in line behind you? Or should you take a less singularly individual role and just manage its implementation?
Our questions with respect to this will be as they have been throughout this discussion:
- What does it do to the organization?
- Why is (or is not) that distinct from management?
- Where does it come from?
Tomorrow we will close this segment by addressing those questions to a hypothetically valid and worthwhile change initiative. Please do stop in.
—
Note: I am grateful for having been notified yesterday, by Miki Saxon of Leadership Turn, that a technical feature recently added to this site to help prevent spam comments was actually blocking some legitimate comments. My apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused. That feature has been removed, so please don’t hesitate to offer your thinking - it is welcome here!
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of the importance of keeping people and culture in mind when managing - or leading - organizations, please see this terrific reminder of the assertive impulse for self-expression posted at Jared D. Nielson’s eponymous site (and many thanks to Steve Roesler at All Things Workplace for the tip).
—
Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!
And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!
Similar Posts:
Technorati Tags: change, leadership, organization, process engineering, CEO, manager, leader, culture, follower, manage, implementation, management, Miki Saxon, managing, leading, Jared D. Nielson, Steve Roesler
Sphere: Related Content
ON DECK
4 Comments
I suspect how one approaches the mandate for change in an organization is greatly influenced by his role in it.
Some leaders might be best suited for setting a good example and serving in a 360-degree advisory capacity.
Depending on the prevalent culture, others might be better suited at directing the change and instructing others on the reasons for the change, plus soliciting feedback — In this way he could facilitate buy-in from throughout the organization and even help implement the change more effectively.
Though a lot of places can run without such buy-in, as a general rule, I believe keeping employees happy by making sure they feel valued is a good practice.
All of this is assuming the change being implemented is warranted and not a part of some ego trip or the result of institutional ignorance.
Hello Cam,
I think the last hurdle you indicate is the hardest one to surmount - and not just regarding whether the change is warranted, but as you indicate, how intelligently its implementation is managed.
Your main points rest on a reference to the fundamental importance of organizational culture, and that is right on the money. A problem in the way organizational change is presented - and sadly all too often effected - is that leaders view themselves as the source, or at least the shaper, of culture.
A common result of this is that the implementation of change in such outfits results in a sort of subsurface clash of cultures, or a even an overt one dominated by an oppressively manipulative imposition of the change agenda.
I wish your approach to change - based on one’s role and the prevalent cultures - was more widespread. Unfortunately, many CEOs or executive teams implementing change don’t trouble much about culture or other people’s roles. They just set out the timetable, gather the data, and reinforce where they see failure.
Thanks, as always, for this - good stuff to think on!
The most basic problem with change is that the organization uses the traditional top-down command and control approach to managing people. Its most glaring problem is not being able to take advantage of the inherent creativity, innovation and productivity inherent in its employees.
Top-down by its nature demeans and disrespects employees. This model concentrates on ordering around employees with goals, targets, visions and a myriad of other orders. The employee’s need to be heard, to be able to put in their two cents whenever they want to do so is ignored by top-down managers. In addition, since employees know better than anyone what is going wrong, they become very frustrated in not being able to get these problems addressed much less fixed.
So top-down in treating employees like robots and not like valued team members leads them to treat their work, their customers, each other and their bosses with great disrespect, even sometimes with hostility. Employees know by their actions that top-down managers don’t care about them so why should they care about the work?
The answer is to stop sending down orders and start listening to employees and providing to them what they say they need to do a better job. The answer is to start providing the highest quality support to employees by asking employees how it can be improved. The best direction is the least direction thus allowing employees to develop a strong sense of ownership for their work and thus become highly motivated and committed about it.
After all, it is management’s responsibility to provide to employees the highest quality training, tools, parts, material, discipline, procedures, policies, rules, direction, technical advice and documentation, etc, etc. Top-down management’s concentration on only direction provides very poor quality direction because the best people are self-directed and are not in need of orders, only high quality tools, material, parts and the like so that the employee can do the work to a high standard of quality.
Without being treated with great support, meaning great respect, employees will not commit themselves to their work or to the success of their company. Change that and you will be stunned by the huge amount of inherent creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation and commitment you have unleashed. Being treated with great respect, employees are eager for any sensible change and do so with ease. I have done this several times and was very pleasantly surprised each time.
Best regards, Ben
Author “Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed”
Hello Ben,
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and insightful observation.
With respect to your connection of administrative control with organizational leadership, I think your points could hardly be more on target. In particular, I appreciate your emphasis that top-down direction is likely to be self-defeating in view of the interpersonal dynamics naturally found (or, at least, available) in collaborative groups, and that the best role for management is to support, rather than constrain with ill-informed orders only, the efforts of their staff.
Thanks again for your visit, I hope we will enjoy many more!
Post a Comment