Just as the tumult about how to be a leader drowns out consideration of what leadership is and why we should trouble ourselves about it, the rush to ride the crest of change often begs the question of what is wagging what. That is: why change?
What sorts of change efforts do you experience in your organization?
- Are they strategic, instituted at a global level by directors or owners, intended to change the very identity or direction of the firm?
- Are they operational, initiated by management to increase efficiency in one way or another?
- Are they tactical, straightforward implementations of newer, hopefully better ways of accomplishing goals?
Are they none of these? Indeed, do you look more closely at some that nominally are in these categories only to discover the latter serving as fictions disguising the formers’ real purposes? Or have they, perhaps, only been hijacked as suitable vehicles for pursuing separate agendas, settling unspoken scores?
All those leaders, those agents of change - are they talking too much about what they’re doing, and not enough about why? Shouldn’t that generate some concern about what the “why” really might be?
There are plenty of good reasons to look at change - indeed, a review for such reasons might be most vital exactly when they are least apparent, or seem least urgent. For the most part, in my experience, such efforts enjoy the greatest success when they arise from carefully formed assessments of current or anticipated shifts in the business environment; with respect to, say, supply, market definition, distribution, or the like; things, that is, that directly challenge the viability of the firm’s strategy and execution.
But ask - and answer - the questions before diving in.
When you have change resulting from a merger or acquisition, for example, might you not ask yourself what the track record is of such ventures? As we know, it is rather a long way from what it’s cracked up to be. So the next question is, why is it being done? Are other industry players just being copied? Is a CEO legacy being built? Or, is there simply a sense of restlessness behind it all? These, and worse, are far from uncommon reasons for such major disruptions.
Alternatively, some change is done out of a simple, and genuinely felt, sense that an organization needs to be more in tune with the times - whatever that is deemed to mean. Is that a good reason? Is it the firm’s duty to be contemporary, or to accomplish its strategic aims?
Any question about how well or appropriately a firm is operating should drill right down to organizational first causes. Otherwise, change cannot possibly be properly assessed or understood, much less implemented.
Why change? Like anything you do as a manager, if you can’t follow the chain of “why” questions down to a valid contributing connection to the central strategic identity and purpose of your organization, then don’t change your activity - change your thinking.
—
Today’s tips: Speaking of who plays what role in change, please see this interesting piece about why you may want to leave innovators out of it, by Shawn at Anecdote. You may also want to view this comment to Friday’s post on the role of leaders - or, at least, of leadership - in successful organizational change, by Steve Roesler of All Things Workplace.
And speaking of trying to figure out what it means to keep up with the times, please see this WSJ item by Max Colchester about how the internet has led to a revival of jousting; here’s a quote from the piece: “It’s not about the prize you win. It’s about hearing your rivals’ wives weep.”
And, finally, speaking of change that is about to crest, please see The Economist about why robots have nothing to lose but their chains.
—
Did you know you can click on the green “Share This” icon below and uplink this post to any of the major social content sites, or email it to your friends and colleagues - give it a try right now!
And, while you’re at it, don’t forget to subscribe, and encourage your friends and colleagues to do so, as well!
Similar Posts:
- Leadership and implementing change
- Assessing change and leadership
- Unity of command
- Change Management: the human element
- Changing the guard
Technorati Tags: leader, change, organization, strategic, director, owner, operational, management, efficiency, tactical, goal, strategy, execution, merger, acquisition, CEO, manager, Anecdote, leadership, Steve Roesler, WSJ, Max Colchester, internet, jousting, Economist, robot
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments
Jim, why should the ‘why’ of change be any different than all the other ‘whys’ that people sidestep?
Identifying, thinking about and understanding ‘why’ takes effort. It’s much easier to bury the ‘why’ under pop language and previous sound bites that have the added benefit of making the speaker sound smarter than he is.
Hi Miki,
That’s right, isn’t it? Spending the time to be sure you know what you’re doing makes you look indecisive.
But we know that people tend to - even look for reasons to - confuse activity for progress, so we just do something which we disguise with blind assertiveness. Then we throw faddish but meaningless jargon around the area like flak, distracting attention and discouraging serious inquiry.
Unfortunately, there are too many instances of this sort of thing at numerous levels and in all kinds of organizations. The frothy vocabulary of the change movement doesn’t help clarify matters.
Thanks for your visit!
I’m fighting off the sad conclusion that thinking, especially deep thinking, is out of style. But at least I’m in good company.
Yes, Miki - I’m sure many of us are keeping you company in that regard, although whether we are good company or not is another question. Your link is to an HBS bit that suggests we need to look below people’s conscious thoughts to their subconscious processes to influence behavior. That’s an interesting thought; certainly worthy of discussion - even debate! Thanks for introducing it!
My pleasure, Jim. Today, people are so wired and so busy that thinking is becoming a lost art, since thinking, shallow or deep, takes a certain amount of quiet. But why bother when you can gogle dozens of sources and get their thinking, mash it up and regurgitate it as your own smarts.
Post a Comment