There is a theory in quantum mechanics that it is possible the future influences the present (and possibly the past). I dug into it in a recent Discover Magazine article.
And did my best to understand the true meaning for quantum mechanics, but big picture mentality that I have…
I got to wondering how that might look for the change process.
It could mean there are multiple versions of result and effect. Basically versions of success and failure. Successful establishment of process and an adaptation of culture to speed change if the future has anything to do with it should be the hand that pulls in the present.
What entity, element or approach do you have in your organization that links the separate parts together? And no you the CEO or senior leader does not count (although you do get credit if you assumed that was your responsibility).
HR would like to have that ownership and there is a history in the literature trying to prove and justify their role. But because of the nature of many of the HR functions, governance, performance, compensation etc, it works best as a transactional function.
This is a preview of
Change Management as a Corporate Strategic Element
.
Read the full post (402 words, estimated 1:36 mins reading time)
If I were a stakeholder (have been many times) my answer would be something like-
A process that clearly illustrates to me the positive effects for both business and people of my contribution.
If I were an executive responsible for change-
The realization of a corporate strategy through productive, efficient utilization of resources.
For Vision to Work it is-
Both of the above plus a change in the organization itself for the better.
Truly successful change management starting at the highest levels and flowing through the organization would:
Ruffle feathers Contrarianism
There is a square peg into a round hole perspective with change management that jumps out of everything I see written.
It is an approach to change that relies on pushing, coaxing, forcing, driving, convincing rather than understanding, leadership, empathy and clearly defined end states. It is a perspective that guides everything that happens in change management and it has worked its way into the executive suite. It is based on two factors straight from Kotter (whose approach has a strangle hold on the change management community and by extension their clients).
Overcoming resistance
This is a preview of
CEO perspective on change- Even McKinsey is following the status quo
.
Read the full post (483 words, estimated 1:56 mins reading time)
One of the things I look for with change engagements is whether or not plans, actions, behaviors and approaches are based on assumptions. Yes, of course, always.
As a manager, how do you get your staff to buy-in to a senior management strategy when neither you nor your staff like the strategy?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/melpbe
This question on LinkedIn illustrates a common change obstacle. It has many mini obstacles, but we will take the main one. “Staff” will not support a strategy and their supervisors join in.
The chosen “best” answer is classic. Facilitation, firing, but basically communication is at the core of the problem.
This is a preview of
Assumptions-Collaboration that does not work
.
Read the full post (391 words, estimated 1:34 mins reading time)