Change Management Tools
What Does 'Change' Mean?
When organisations decide to make a change, what do they mean by ‘change’? How ready are the managers and employees for that change? Is the level of chaos and uncertainty going to motivate employees, or will they become unproductive and search for a new job?
What type of leadership style is required to make a smooth transition? Does the leadership team have the right mix of skills to lead the change successfully?
Change in business through mergers and acquisitions, re-structures, or the emergence of new markets, new products and competitors has always been the nature of commercial enterprise. But the difference today is that the rate of change is faster, and the benefits and impacts can be far more severe.
Would you be interested in cultural assessment tools that could accurately predict the behaviours and likely responses of employees, managers and leaders in relation to an organisational change process? If you were able to tailor all change announcements and communication in a way that was most compatible with the culture of the company in order to get it accepted by even the toughest pessimist, would that of value?
If you are curious about how to do this, you may be interested in what’s described as the ‘theory that explains everything’, a model called Spiral Dynamics integral (SDi). This model, derived from the amazing research of Dr. Clare Graves, has been developed and used for over 30 years in geo-political change work, government, business and counter-terrorism projects that are ongoing. But it was kept a secret for 20 years because it was considered too powerful for the lay person. But the protégé of the Gravesian model, Dr. Don Beck , who worked directly with Dr. Clare Graves since the 1970s, is teaching this model (re-named Spiral Dynamics) worldwide. Dr. Beck believes that the planet doesn’t have that much time for the human race to catch up, and that awareness of the SDi model will speed up that process.
Who’s to blame for corporate disasters?
When company employees/managers are punished, sacked, and sometimes jailed for doing the ‘wrong’ thing and causing millions of dollars of losses to the business and shareholders (e.g. the foreign exchange scandal of one of the big four banks), companies, or entities run by people, should take a closer look at who’s really to blame.
A company division that is highly focused on developing and implementing strategies that increase profitability, sets up its natural environment when it provides a remuneration structure that rewards performance through significant bonuses and incentives for reaching targets. The people it will attract will be those who are highly motivated by high pressured challenges, and are driven by large bonus incentive schemes. A perfect fit you might say. Well they pretty much are because they are the people who are most capable of achieving the profit targets the Divisional head demands.
Initially, perhaps for a few years, there’s no problem, just great results. With a proven track record few outsiders would question that division’s operating procedures or policies, unless they had good reason to. But when someone notices a glaring issue, like a multi-million dollar unaccounted for loss, it will quickly escalate to the top – opening up Pandora’s Box.
Investigators/auditors are brought in and heads start to roll. But are the culprits who took actions that knowingly contravened company rules really to blame? Based on employee conduct policies and the meaning of personal responsibility, you would say, yes they are absolutely responsible and should pay the consequences of their actions.
But let’s take a deeper look at this. The company has set up a natural habitat (the division) and has lured in it the kind of inhabitants that are most suited to this environment. The financial rewards are highly appealing and key drivers to reaching peak performance status. There are rules, just as there are laws of nature, which must be respected. But what if the structure of the man-made rules left a few open loopholes which could be exploited in order to achieve the best results. Isn’t it natural that these loopholes will be utilised by the inhabitants? Isn’t it the company’s fault for not setting up the appropriate compliance policies and procedures that could have prevented any attempt by an inhabitant to take a higher risk than is allowed?
Of’ course what follows the aftermath is the priority set up of stringent compliance procedures that slow down any effort to generate profit. The company panics and goes into overcorrection mode, hiring more auditors and compliance managers than business managers. The business managers left behind, who were not at fault to begin with, are now penalized and unable to use their creative and innovative talents that they were hired for in the first place. Suddenly the natural habitat has transformed – from ‘profit driven/success’ to ‘compliance/procedures’. The suffocating effects on the high achievers will now result in an exodus of employees, low morale, and low productivity. When this begins to hurt the company in terms of minimal turnaround in profit, the prediction is that the company will begin to relax on some of the unnecessary procedures that are discouraging employees from performing.
At some stage following a disaster, maybe one, two, three years or more, the company may restore the right balance in its eco system, with a high level of ‘profit/success’ habitats and an optimal level of ‘compliance/procedures’ habitats, so that shareholders, stakeholders, customers, suppliers, and the community can all be happy and live in harmony.
For more information on how to prevent a disaster from happening in your organisation, or how to address changes effectively, contact us via email or phone
