It is commonly understood in business that change is necessary to stay ahead of the game. Organizations scramble to improve their market share.

    The most consistent message to employees is to find new ways to get better results.

    Greater effectiveness, more with less, right the first time, be creative — the direction is clear. What happens when change is initiated at the middle or from the bottom?

    When groups within an organization begin to change how they do their work, do they get unqualified support from the rest of the organization?

    Judging from our 30 years of experience in organizational change with more than 30 different organizations, the answer is a resounding "No."

    It is a rare circumstance that change initiated other than at the "top" is allowed to significantly alter an organization. Unless the senior levels of authority in an organization have either envisioned the changes or have sanctioned the proposals, the changes will predictably be halted. This move to control people usually occurs well into the change planning and about the time that real organizational results are being achieved.

    In our experience, even as the work of these groups is demonstrating significant benefits for the organization, including improvements for the bottom line, the "politics" of the organization kick in.

    While most senior management people would profess to want "self-empowering" employees, the opposite seems to be the rule.

    Sustainable and ongoing change requires that the work is done with full ownership and accountability on the part of those getting the results.

    The usual situation is that employees are given direction by those in authority and complete work as they are told to do it.

    The dependence on authority to develop new ideas is perpetuated.

    Perhaps leadership is self-serving and has discovered that recognition is given most to people who come up with profitable new ideas.

    However, the art of modern leadership is supposed to lie in the ability to foster an environment that supports creative performance.

    There is no question that leadership is most capable when it can keep work aligned with the direction of the organization.

    The best of our leaders today have the ability to challenge thinking and yet ensure that the company progresses.

    Unfortunately, the key message to employees is "be creative, but within the framework of approved thinking."

    This unspoken limitation requires continuously improved performance from employees while following another's thinking.

    The message and the direction are in conflict. Creative thinking is rarely led.

    New ways of thinking occur as an effect of spiraling ideas which build one from the other in a free flow.

    From new experiences that are successful, opportunities for change are created. The least motivating factor is to be forced to seek out approval before the change is tried out.

    Prudent risk-taking is part and parcel of the excitement that comes with discovering.

    The more usual scenario is that management defines what change will occur.

    The employee is left to figure out how to make it work. If the change process is initiated from anywhere else, serious change is inevitably stopped or shut down.

    There are a number of reasons why this pattern may exist. Fear of things getting out of control tops the list.

    "Politics" often makes managers fear the loss of control more than striving for success.

    The past decade of brutal reorganization has probably reinforced that fear.

    We have had a traditional pattern in organizations whereby the "top" does the thinking and the rest of the organization does the work. Change from the inside out challenges this pattern.

    Today, leadership is challenged to lead rather than control change — and that could be the road to censure instead of recognition.

    Creative work that isn't the boss' idea could well be the reason for success in today's business only if the changes see the light of day.

 

 

    The Performance group appreciates your feedback. E-mail us at Tpg547@aol.com.

    The authors have additionally requested that Bellwether-Ecliptic Inc. (Organizational Architects) be included in the credits to their article, with two email addresses supplied for anyone interested in commenting: Leoinc547@aol.com and Workcoach547@aol.com.

Member World Wide Web Chamber of Commerce
Promoting "Responsible and Ethical Internet Business”

Articles included at this site constitute the expressed opinions of their authors. If you notice any errors or have any suggestions for improvement, please let us know by e-mailing us at webmaster@mdpme.com. Thank you!

This web page was last updated on Monday, February 2, 2004.
http://www.mdpme.com/suggestions.htm

Terms of use &
Disclaimer/Privacy.