|
Free sample chapter from "Your Personal Survival Guide to the 21st Century" by Roy Sheppard Important Notice This work remains the copyright of the author. It may be distributed in printed or electronic form on the following conditions;
Chapter 3 CHANGE "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. Courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference". The Serenity Prayer Just when you have got used to the way things are at work - what happens? The bosses decide to change it all - yet again. They are obviously doing it to justify their own jobs. After all, if they didn’t constantly change the company structure, reporting responsibilities, remuneration packages, working hours and shift patterns, they wouldn’t have a job. We’ve all seen it - bosses disappear for days on end for ‘strategy meetings’ and ‘brain-storming’ sessions, and so are not available for the constant stream of crises you and your colleagues have to deal with as a result of the last round of their company ‘improvements’. Will it ever end? In short - almost certainly not. Change is very definitely here to stay. In fact, even more change is likely. The process of change is highly demanding, requiring additional effort and more work – work which you probably do not welcome on top of growing pressure and responsibilities. In this chapter we will look predominantly at how to handle changes at work – although as you will see in the following pages, the principles for managing or coping with change can be used in other situations too. Why all this change then? There has been more change in the last four years of this century than in the entire Twentieth Century. But how is this possible? Advances in technology have led the way. Firstly, there are more scientists alive today than in the entire history of human kind. Secondly, the phenomenal growth in computer availability and computer processing power means that these scientists are now able to record, store and distribute their findings in digital form. The sharing of scientific data, information and knowledge, throughout the world, has also enabled the rapid implementation of new knowledge. Rapid implementation is also a financial necessity within today’s global corporations, which spend billions of dollars on research and development annually. This drive for achieving constant technological breakthroughs is based on the fear of corporations that if they do not innovate, competitors will seize an advantage leading to a drop in short-term results, subsequently leading a drop in their share price and ultimately death in the marketplace. Simultaneously, businesses all over the world are looking for new innovations in order to improve their productivity and efficiency. This desire to buy into the latest technological advances is often seen as their way of getting or staying ahead of their competitors. This too is led by fear; fear that if they don’t constantly upgrade their technology, they will fall behind in the corporate race to keep existing customers and attract new ones. The stakes are high and it’s expensive to take part in these technological games of one upmanship. So, how can businesses afford to compete? Some can’t - more and more are going out of business or getting swallowed up by larger organisations. Take food retailing as an example; the large supermarket chains are opening more and more out-of-town stores. These highly automated and technology driven money making machines will continue to put small, independently owned ‘corner’ shops out of business. The larger companies which buy new technology to improve their automation processes must look around to find ways to save costs. Hence the widespread implementation of ‘process re-engineering’ and the delayering of corporate hierarchies over the last few years. Many more companies will be forced into making massive layoffs and redundancies. For the first time ever, it is now possible to make anything, anywhere at anytime for anybody and in any colour. Advances in technology allow products to be made in smaller numbers, with fewer parts, manufactured and assembled by sophisticated multi-purpose robots, supervised by fewer workers. Indeed some joker once commented that the factory of the future will be equipped with a wide array of robots, just one worker, and a dog. The robot will do all the manufacturing and assembling, while the worker’s job is to feed the dog. The dog’s job will be to distract the worker so he or she doesn’t tamper with the robots! In manufacturing businesses, if owners can’t eliminate all unnecessary waste and costs they run the real risk of becoming un-competitive -therefore to preserve the future of the company, they must make constant changes and improvements – some of which may result in radical changes to the ways in which the company operates. As computer software becomes more sophisticated and capable of performing more complex tasks, service businesses will be affected in similar ways. The bottom line for individuals is that most change programmes put some or a lot of people out of work. But if such changes are not made quickly enough, the consequences can be worse – the company will become unprofitable, go out of business and everyone loses their job. Businesses have never had to deal with change on this scale before. It’s small wonder that those people who are being forced into making such changes are nervous. They’ve never had to do it before. Those affected are sometimes terrified – and will do whatever they can to stop the process. But to no avail. No one can stop change without suffering in other ways. Understanding ‘change’ Frederick Taylor, the grandfather of ‘time and motion’ studies in industry was responsible for many positive innovations in the way complex tasks were broken down into manageable and measurable chunks. However, many of the work practices he advocated so successfully, were based on the deeply held belief that workers were incompetent and had to be supervised at every level within an organisation. Today and in tomorrow’s business world, the most successful companies MUST assume they employ competent people and treat them accordingly. This requires levels of trust and empowerment which many organisations have difficulty in creating. A major component of change within organisations is how they transform themselves from being perceived as the employer of incompetent people into an organisation which provides competent , skillful and knowledgeable people with the resources they need to achieve business success. This transition is nearly always painful for everyone involved. Different people respond to change in different ways. Those in the more junior positions within companies are amongst those most open to change. Despite some understandable cynicism towards ‘initiativitis’, they realise how much change is needed. They hope that the real cause, rather than the perceived cause, of problems will be addressed. But middle managers are a different story. Some, not all, tend to believe that any fundamental changes to an organisation will result in a loss of their personal power and authority - therefore many tend to stand in the way of change in any way they can think up. Later we’ll explore some of the reasons why we all obstruct change if we can – just to preserve the status quo. In many ways, our ancestors were lucky - their basic patterns of life hardly changed at all - sometimes for hundreds of years. Life in the latter part of the 20th century has seen more change than at any other time in the history of humankind. As the pace of life continues to accelerate, how we deal with change will have a direct bearing on our ability to survive and thrive in the 21st century. How do you respond to increased stress and pressure? How do you react when changes are introduced at work? Are they an annoyance? Or do you enjoy the challenge of doing new things, learning new skills, operating new equipment, reporting to different people or working in new locations? Anyone who enjoys change is a rare individual. The fact is that most of us are ‘change averse’ - we’re afraid to change, just in case matters get worse! There is a certain degree of comfort and cosiness associated with having a routine. We can just get on with what we have to do without thinking about it too much. When we know how to do something, we are more likely to perform the task well. But when things are constantly changing, more tasks must be attempted for the first time. And because there usually isn’t a clearly defined company procedure for these new tasks and new ways of working, our superiors won’t necessarily have the answers either so we are left to get on with things in the best way we can. Each new task increases the possibility that we will get things wrong. Changes increase the likelihood that we will get important things wrong - who would want that? Screw up too often and who knows if they will still have a job? You have to be prepared to make some mistakes – there simply isn't the time to ensure that everything is perfect. This is one of the key short comings surrounding the admirable concept of Total Quality Management (TQM) which ardently promotes "get everything right, first time, every time". Striving for perfection is commendable but senior managers need to ‘get real’. It’s not achievable – get it right as often as you can and constantly learn from your mistakes is probably more realistic. No wonder people get hacked off with ‘unreasonable’ demands - no one wants to do a bad job, or if they do, someone must have really annoyed them. So, it’s understandable that when changes are likely, most sane people will view them with justifiable suspicion and caution - or as we will see later - it is often better to convince ourselves that the changes probably won’t actually happen, if they do they won’t be that important, or if they are important they won’t affect us personally. Ignoring, or refusing to think through, the personal consequences of changes in our working lives, society, the environment and international government is a well documented ‘coping mechanism’ for millions of people. When we don’t think about fundamentally important personal issues (such as what are you going to live on during an expected 30 years of ‘retirement’?) it gives us permission to avoid feeling worried. After all, if we were to think too much, we might risk forcing ourselves into doing something about it! There is absolutely no point simply hoping that change will not affect us in the future. No one will escape the consequences of change in the decades to come; technological changes, changes at work, in the home, in government and in society - in every area of our lives. We can run but we can't hide! An ostrich may think it is safe by sticking its head in the sand but think for a moment how vulnerable it looks, with its backside sticking up in the air! Understandably, people are worried about change, but you have more cause for concern if your employer is not changing. If you are particularly averse to changes in your life – ask yourself what benefits you think you get from trying to live in the past? Take a moment to think about some of the fundamental changes in your life over the last two decades. How has your job changed? What technological devices, which may not even have existed 20 years ago, do you use today at work? at home? or as part of your hobbies? What impact have these items had on your life? Positive and negative. Think about any changes that you feared in your company or in society and then, in reality changed your mind about when you discovered that the changes produced improvements rather than the negative outcomes which you expected. We must all learn to turn ‘change’ into a friend. Throughout this book you will read examples of how change is having, and will have direct and indirect effects on your life. But there is no point in understanding clearly the changes which are happening all around you, if you are not prepared to alter your behaviour to take full advantage of such changesand so get them to work in your favour. Dealing with change is potentially painful when it involves changing the way you have worked for a long time or means facing the prospect of losing your job. But the problems are not limited to these types of ‘bad’ change. ‘Good’ changes can be hell, too. Living through the hell of ‘Good’ Change In 1996, I was heavily involved in writing and delivering a series of conferences for the British staff of one of the world’s largest manufacturers of semi-conductors. A key area for discussion was how to ‘manage change’. How those individuals interpreted their situation will go some way towards explaining how we as human beings approach change, and what we can all do to ‘stack the cards’ in our favour for the future. Before we go into the detail of how the topic was addressed, it is worth explaining a little about the semi-conductor industry and the context in which the staff worked. This will help you understand more fully, how ‘change’ impacts on us all, and how we can choose to manage it. Try to put yourself in the shoes of those involved in the process - and ask yourself how your industry could be affected in similar ways as we move more and more towards a global economy. If you don’t work in manufacturing, don’t be tempted to believe that you won’t be affected. The semi-conductor industry is enjoying (or suffering from) explosive growth
and will continue to do so. It is the growth industry in the world.
Electronic equipment uses many semi-conductors but much of the industry growth
stems from the fact that more and more basic electrical products are being
designed to become ‘smarter’, This is fantastic news for the semi-conductor business. If you want to work in a ‘secure’ industry, ‘semi-conductors’ is the one. So, on the face of it, the staff of the company I was working with have got it made in the 21st Century. I am sure you know many individuals who would readily swap their own insecure jobs for such an assured career. However, the price you have to pay for job ‘security’ is a high one. The staff at this factory have been through hell and back. Much of the time they were unaware of what they were facing - all they knew was that it was a truly horrible experience. The semi-conductor industry it is not without its problems - a world glut of semi-conductors forces prices down. This squeezes manufacturers’ margins, which means that businesses must be ruthless in eliminating unnecessary costs and maximising productivity, wherever and whenever possible. For a number of years the staff at this particular factory were told their very survival remained in the balance. The holding company said "Improve performance or we close you down." This ultimatum made them feel used, abused and under-valued. Sadly, but understandably, no one felt the need to explain the situation to those directly involved. It was one of those classic situations; senior management couldn’t say too much because they were up against the unions, who only had the interests of the workforce in mind - not the future of the business. A long standing distrust of management ensured that the union representatives would refuse to see that the interests of the staff and the long term survival of the business was inextricably linked. But the owners knew that, crucially, the future success of the company (and the workforce) depended on their ability to produce and deliver the highest quality products at the lowest possible cost and at the precise times they were required by their customers. A tall order - especially when so many of the ‘workers’ believed deeply that quality control was a ‘management’ issue - they were there to just do as they were told. If management told them to do something that was stupid - they would do it to show management how stupid they were. A good case of ‘fixing the blame, not the problems.’ The owners had to decide whether to keep the factory open or build a brand new one. If they decided to relocate, it would put nearly a thousand people out of work. As a major employer in a rural area this would have a catastrophic effect on the local economy and create massive local unemployment. But the company senior management knew that if the workforce refused to deliver what had to be done - they would lose their jobs anyway, forced out of business by superior products manufactured by their competitors. In any case, why work in an environment dealing with unions who seem obsessed with maintaining the status quo regardless of the longer-term costs both to the staff and the business? Relocating factories to areas where such unions do not exist has many distinct advantages. More and more companies - especially those in electronics, consumer appliances and textiles are moving their operations elsewhere in the world - often where labour is cheap (or cheaper) and the best available manufacturing technology costs less to buy and implement than using existing technology in the West. As all countries in Asia are continuing to grow at explosive rates - demand for consumer products in that part of the world is rising dramatically - so it makes sense to move closer to the marketplace and the main centres of component assembly - in this case, India and Pacific Rim countries such as The Philippines, Taiwan, China, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. This would save distribution and transportation costs whilst increasing the speed of supply and allowing the company to lower the levels of products it had to keep in stock - ‘just in case’ – a considerable financial saving. The capital costs of building a new factory would be considerable but it could be built using the latest technology to exactly the specification needed, whilst ensuring and building-in the capabilities for expansion. A new factory could be equipped with the latest labour saving equipment using the most up-to-date high technology and there would be a large pool of available labour all of whom would be eager to work. In some countries, annual salaries are a small fraction of those enjoyed by workers in Western Europe. There is another massive incentive to move a factory to such an area of the world - the company would not be saddled with cripplingly expensive statutory health care and pension provision. Germany’s health care costs are amongst the highest in the world - can they remain competitive in the global marketplace? Unlikely. The temptation to relocate an international business is therefore high! But this particular company chose not to do so. The seriousness of its message eventually got through and under intense pressure, the staff and management had started to work together to improve the quality and efficiency of performance at the factory. But morale was at an all time low. This much-needed change of attitude represented the greatest hurdle the company had still to overcome. Their customers represented a wide variety of high quality, global consumer electronics companies. Those customers were becoming far more demanding of their suppliers; every faulty component used in the manufacture of their products represented additional and unnecessary costs to their businesses. Correcting any fault on a sophisticated production line takes time, which means money, while faulty goods returned from consumers result in a tarnishing image for any manufacturer of quality products. The headaches of unnecessary shipment, dismantling, fault isolation, replacement of faulty components, re-assembly and redelivery of the product means few manufacturers can afford to risk working with a supplier who falls down on the quality side of production. In today’s competitive marketplace, product manufacturers have absolutely no room for shoddy and unreliable components. The company knew that if existing staff at the manufacturing plant were unable or unwilling consistently to deliver products to such demanding specifications - then neither the company nor the staff had a future. It was as simple as that. This tough message was not well received at the time. However, there is nothing like a crisis to focus the mind! Management had started to implement a variety of change programmes and initiatives which were designed to ‘empower’ their staff to do what ever was necessary to improve product quality, product availability and internal morale. Many of these programmes had achieved some success, but the changes were not being accepted by all staff. Attitudes amongst the workers varied greatly; from those who were embracing the changes eagerly to staff who were effectively digging their heels in and doing what ever they could to make it clear to management that they would not cooperate. Allsorts of emotions were being stirred up. As I stated earlier - there was a great deal of unhappiness. One delegate even said during a particularly ‘lively’ open forum discussion that the company had ‘ruined his life’. It was obvious that as far as he was concerned, they were to blame for his misfortunes in life (someone told me later he had certain financial problems - nothing to do with his company) but he needed to blame somebody - so long as it was not himself. This example is a perfect illustration of how a situation of change can be perceived either as an opportunity or a threat. During our extended discussions, many staff were able to see that they had been given a huge opportunity, while a small, but significant proportion adamantly refused to accept the situation in this way - sadly, those people will have to be ‘carried’ by the others. All businesses go through these phases of change; indifference, ridicule, abuse, oppression and respect. My work with the staff revolved around how to cope with 5 clearly defined stages of change.
This is better known as the D.R.E.A.D. of change. These elements have distinct qualities and a varying array of emotions attached to them. Some of them can be particularly intense and include anger, bitterness, hatred, irritation and an overwhelming sense of helplessness. Some, if not all of these emotions are experienced by most individuals who are subjected to large scale changes in their life, especially within a work environment. One of the basic drivers of human behaviour involves the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Each new situation we find ourselves in is open for personal interpretation. If we suspect it will take us towards pain, we will use whatever resources we have available to us to minimise this threat, regardless of whether the pain is real or imagined. Our personal feelings of self-confidence, self-esteem, our sense of security, how much we love our partners and want to care for them, how uncomfortable we may feel about a whole host of real and imaginary reasons, all have a bearing on how we respond to a new situation. And how we respond to individual situations has an impact on our future lives. All our behaviours and attitudes are shaped by the information we have available to us and how we interpret that information. This is fine if we can analyse a situation accurately. However our emotions, insecurities and fears can and do get in the way sometimes. It is worth taking a look at any ‘change situation’ in your life today or one which you have been through in the past. Go through it now in your mind and try to identify any of the 5 key stages. It can be a fascinating and enlightening experience. Denial It is very common for individuals who are presented with a situation which could represent emotional pain to respond in a predictable way. If, for example, someone was led to believe that she was about to be affected by a significant organisational change within her company and, even though there were certain indications to suggest that such a situation would occur, / it is quite common for such an individual to blot it out of her mind by denying that it was actually going to happen. Ignoring changes or stonewalling may help you feel you are protecting yourself but it doesn’t usually work in the long run. As part of the denial process, individuals avoid getting involved, happily unhappy that they cannot do anything about it. Denial mechanisms run so deep in some people, they don’t even know what they are denying! A classic example of denial is the inextricably interlaced emotions associated with either being an alcoholic or having to live with one. The alcoholic may deny for years (sometimes violently) that there is a problem. For the families, they routinely choose to collectively deny that they have any difficulties at home - to the world they are just one big happy family. The children of abusive parents often grow up in a constant state of denial. Confronting the reality of their situation is too painful to consider - so it’s buried deep inside them - where it is all too often left to fester and contaminate the entire lives of those affected. This emotional anaesthetic through denial and self-deception is so often an understandable means of self-protection. The troubles begin when the anaesthetic wears off. So, many people need to ensure that it doesn’t ever wear off. They may look to alcohol, nicotine and stronger mood altering drugs – some are legal (they are the ones which generate tax revenue) and others such as heroin and cocaine remain illegal (and do not). This denial doesn’t just occur amongst individuals - large corporations, even governments perpetuate these ‘vital lies’ as Daniel Goleman describes in his 1985 book Vital Lies, Simple Truths. He quotes psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon who commented on how people "avoid acquiring information that would make vague fears specific enough to require decisive action". When you have learned to deny a threat, you can allay most feelings of trauma, fear and anxiety. It’s a neat mental trick. If only it worked for long enough. In which ways do you deny the existence of potential threats to your future survival? Resistance By filtering out potential pain through denial, we reassure ourselves that ‘everything will turn out fine in the end’. That’s great if matters do improve - but what will you do if they don’t? Many embark on a campaign of ‘resistance’. It’s the perfect alibi for anyone who is determined to reinforce in their own mind that they weren’t being daft to be in denial. Resistance to ‘change’ is also a well documented way people use to convince themselves that by not acknowledging or helping with the change process they have a degree of control over their situation, albeit a misplaced one. Paul and Sarah McBride are environmental journalists who spent three years in the jungles of Madagascar. Paul and Sara organised the building from scratch of a 36 ton wooden fishing boat for their village. Their first job; to make the boat building tools - this project brings new meaning to the term ‘hand built’. Finding timbers for the boat often involved trekking for six or seven miles into the jungle, selecting a suitable tree, felling it with their primitive tools then with the help of 30 to 40 Malagash natives, literally dragging the hard-wood tree back to the boat building site. For generations the villagers had physically lifted and moved such trees a few inches at a time. Moving an entire tree would take many weeks of hard, back breaking work. Paul was able to construct a simple rope and pulley system which the men pulled in unison, successfully sliding the tree trunk far faster and easier than using mere muscle power. Everything progressed well until they stopped for a break. Paul and Sara wandered off into the jungle to smoke a cigarette and returned 10 or 15 minutes later to find a native elder angrily berating the men for using the pulley system instead of dragging the timber by hand. The elder was absolutely furious because in his mind the men, by accepting this new method, had insulted their ancestors who would not have used such technology. The men went back to work - but without the pulley system. Imagine the utter frustration experienced by Paul and Sara. This refusal to use what we in a high-tech society might consider very low grade technology, is a prime example of how human beings will sometimes refuse to embrace change even if it ultimately makes their lives easier. It must be similar for executives trying to implement some new method of working, which is dismissed by those workers haunted by the past. How people resist change is very well documented in business and represents a fascinating insight into what drives and motivates individuals. Whenever a change programme is introduced at a company it is often thought by a significant proportion of staff that it is the latest monthly initiative which, like all the others which have preceded it, will not really make any difference to the way things are done. Many changes are not taken seriously. This obviously creates problems for those responsible for implementing the changes as well as those affected by them. Often, when the change programme falters, it may be jettisoned in an attempt to find something else which will be more successful. This of course, perpetuates the idea that change programmes are not important - if they were they would be ‘stuck at’. Everyone in such an organisation is responsible for such a dynamic. Half the workforce are to blame - the other half! While this management versus workers game goes on, Nero style, the business may be burning to the ground. ‘Resistance’ in all its forms is well known in business amongst middle managers in particular – especially in organisations which are flattening their hierarchical structures or down-sizing. Many such managers wield what remains of their power to do whatever they can to slow down the change process. Often this means merely ‘paying lip service’ to the changes, conveniently forgetting to keep key players within the organisation informed of important meetings and developments. There are a whole host of common behaviours that fit this ‘resistance’ stage. They are well documented - and well meaning by those who practice the art of resistance. Psychologically, they believe they are preserving their future. In reality, they are merely prolonging their pain. Interestingly, workers in the more junior positions within a company are often those most keen to implement change - they tend to have less to lose and, being at the ‘sharp end’, they can see at first hand what things need improving. Trying to maintain the status quo, is a human frailty and is the human response to a rapidly changing and uncertain world. Whenever we are asked or forced to change, our immediate thoughts are for what we will lose as a result. Whenever the word change is used in your life, you may find it easier to cope with if you try to substitute the word improvement - on many occasions you will see that this is indeed the situation if you choose to look at it in this way. Advice to executives and business owners: delete the word ‘change’ from your vocabulary - substitute the word ‘improvement’. Why? Most people fear the consequences of ‘change’, but are often more willing (please note I didn’t say ‘willing’) to accept and embrace improvements – even if they may need convincing the improvements for the business will also mean personal improvements for them. When changes are being implemented it is easy to feel out of control - therefore resisting changes is one way to believe we do in fact, have an element of control over the situation. If you have ever thought that your employer has mistreated you in any way (even if they have not) you may feel aggrieved - your resistance could be your way of getting your own back. When resisting change, people often come up with long lists of reasons why the change or changes are a bad thing for the company, the rest of the staff and for them in particular (although many resistors tend to insist that their own feelings do not matter - all they are interested in is looking after the business and their colleagues - oh yeah?!). It is also common for those who resist change to believe genuinely and deeply that their bosses are making a huge mistake. They refuse (either conveniently or otherwise) to accept that without the benefit of seeing the fuller picture, their views and obstructive behaviour is at best misguided, at worst - destructive. For some individuals it can be particularly difficult to share the ethics or new direction of their company. This may significantly affect their ability to be fulfilled within that company. Trying to influence senior management is one option - leaving is another. Unethical companies, or more importantly those perceived to be unethical, suffer when attempting to recruit new staff. The best people shy away from unethical companies. Therefore if a business is to flourish in the future, its ethical policies will become increasingly important. The view from the top of an organisation is often far better than from the trenches. That doesn’t mean that bosses are always correct, although I have noticed more than one of my clients embark on change programmes and make a number of key mistakes - out of fear, distrust or a genuine desire to insulate their staff from the problems and pressures the business is wrestling with. After all, dealing with problems is what managers and business leaders are paid for isn’t it? Well, they used to be. Today, and increasingly in tomorrow’s companies, more and more staff will become involved in the business decision-making processes. This frightens the life out of many business leaders and managers. They’ve GOT to learn to change too. When people are consulted rather than presented with orders of how they will change, changes tended to be resisted less. This is usually because they all have a fuller understanding of the circumstances and the need for the changes. It is worth noting that ‘consultation’ is not the same as ‘negotiation’. This confusion often poses a problem for both managers and staff. Another common mistake is how executives become so obsessed with solving the crisis, they either forget, or refuse to tell anyone what is going on. They’re afraid of the unions, they’re afraid that staff will panic, they are petrified that it will affect the company share price (and the value of their stock options). The result? – usually more staff resistance and the accompanying stress and frustration. It would probably be easier to carry that tree through the Madagascan jungle! Anyone who is resistant to change probably lacks confidence about their ability to cope with it. They could be afraid of losing their job or status. They’ll say things to themselves like :
Perhaps they vaguely realise that they do not have the necessary skills to deal with the situation. If that’s you, get them - quick! Improve your problem solving skills, increase your technical knowledge or develop your management and leadership skills. You may be thinking what should someone do if faced with fundamentally negative changes in their life if resistance is as futile as I’m leading you to believe. Obviously not all resistance to changes is a waste of your time and energy. What is important however, is knowing when to resist change and fight for what you believe in and when to accept the reality and need for any proposed changes. The answer is to explore all the options fully - this includes your personal behaviour, anxieties, needs and aspirations as well as the context in which such changes are being suggested or demanded. Exploration Before any change can be accepted, embraced and implemented a process owork or f exploration is essential. By looking at your situation, whether in pamount and ersonally, you can only make a sensible decision based on the aasking a series ccuracy of information relating to the proposed changes. By oyou can equip f well thought through questions in a non-confrontational way, yeasier for you to ourself with many of the answers you will need to make it adon’t make any ccept or otherwise cope with changes. It is important you assumptions - or accept them from others. Find out from the source(s). Brainstorming questions could include the following;
In my experience, changes within an organisation are usually instigated for the best of business reasons. These could include the very survival of the organisation, protecting the longer term prospects for staff and improving working conditions and streamlining processes which staff find unnecessary, frustrating and time consuming. Staff have a different way of describing it; mushroom management when they are kept in the dark and fed a load of s***! If you are a manager, it is so tempting to be selective about the information you give to staff, customers or suppliers. As mentioned earlier, a ‘need to know’ approach from the top of an organisation often causes pain, frustration and confusion for everyone in the longer term. This is well illustrated by the following example. I was due to interview a sales director at a meeting of his 70 sales staff. In the lead up to the event he refused point blank to discuss anything negative "It would be bad for staff motivation and bad for business." he said emphatically. He was adamant that the subject of the company car policy was absolutely forbidden – even though it would certainly be at the forefront of people’s minds at the meeting. It had been a recurring and painful issue for him for the previous 6 months or so. After sustained and gentle persuasion he explained privately what had happened. He confided that he’d even told his wife about it. Her response was hilarious - even though he didn’t think so. Finally, he agreed to talk about it in front of the staff. With his full backing beforehand I made the following opening remark "You’ve got a lousy car policy, haven’t you?". This elicited cheers and a spontaneous round of applause from the audience. He then said (as agreed) that when he’d told his wife about the changes, she replied "And what idiot came up with that idea?" Howls of laughter from the audience. He went on to explain that all reps. cars had to be exchanged for diesels because his board had forced him to make a saving of £80,000 - he had two choices - going diesel or making three staff redundant. He added that he too had handed in his Saab Turbo for a diesel. His problem of 6 months’ standing was solved in less than 5 minutes. He learned that his staff did need to know why he had made a decision which represented a big change to their working lives - anyone who knows anything about sales staff will quickly tell you that what car they are supplied with means a great deal to them - any company which equips its sales force with cars perceived to be of low quality and kudos is asking for trouble. Morale instantly improved at this conference and for the rest of the day, delegates were far more open to the other demands which their highly competitive marketplace was thrusting upon them. Trained therapists are taught that all behaviour has a positive intention, but sometimes there are negative consequences. The sales director’s intentions were positive, honourable and professional (he didn’t want to fire 3 staff) but the assumption that people need only have partial information resulted in the problems he and the staff encountered. If you are not undergoing a process of change in your working life it is recommended that you go immediately to ‘exploration’. Look at your situation very carefully. Find out where changes are most likely. Turn ‘exploration’ into a personal priority. What is happening in your life? What are the threats affecting your particular business or industry? Don’t be tempted to provide yourself with the convenient knee jerk reaction "There are no threats." Read your trade publications. Talk to superiors, suppliers, customers and competitors. Look towards the horizon of your future. What’s the weather forecast? In areas where tornadoes occur regularly, people know that if a tornado does not appear to be moving - it’s either going away or its heading directly at them. Is there a tornado heading straight for you - how fast is it going? When could it hit? ‘Exploration’ before fundamental change ‘hits’ your life will open up additional choices to you, it will give you the time to prepare. Build your internal and external networks of people who could help you jump ship should you ever need to. Equip yourself with new skills and knowledge. Remember that phrase I used earlier "The future belongs only to those who have adequately prepared for it." The alternative is to ‘hope for the best’ –and that’s not a good choice in these turbulent times. Acceptance Accepting the need for change does not mean the same as being happy about it. What should you do if you discover that changes are on the way? What if you have grounds to suspect that the change is bad news for you? You could go back to the resistance stage, dig your heels in and make life a misery for everybody else too! (plenty of people do) It can seem like the only option - but it isn’t. Karen, a friend’s sister, has a high powered job in a telecommunications company which has recently been bought out by a larger conglomerate. (By the time you read this, she may not have). Her approach is intelligent, pragmatic and the one most likely to deliver the best personal result in what is a difficult situation. She has been given the job of firing herself. Her employer hasn’t actually said that but she knows what is going to happen. As part of a team she is tasked with assessing who should go and who should stay when the companies are fully integrated. This is happening everywhere as companies continue to merge. She decided to learn from the experience. Realising her future employability will improve if she can demonstrate confidence when dealing with such a situation she has embraced these fundamental changes even though she is not happy about it. Karen realises that once this project is completed there will be less people to manage and more competition for the remaining jobs. Who knows, her employer may want to keep her. Fantastic - if it happens. Meantime, she’s busily designing and sewing together her parachute before her plane goes into a vertical dive … just in case! How is your company doing? Is business performance sluggish? Is performance outstandingly good? Either way, your company could be ripe for takeover. What would you do if your company was bought out by a larger concern? It’s worth some serious thought, especially if you work in a rapidly changing and dynamic industry sector. Doing It This, the final stage in the D.R.E.A.D. process speaks for itself. Get on with doing your bit to implement the change. Some colleagues will almost certainly view you with suspicion – especially if relationships between staff and management are strained or there is a history of conflict, distrust and a prevailing ‘them and us’ mentality. How you deal with such situations depends so much on the unique circumstances within your company but the thought processes you went through and the answers you received whilst reaching the ‘doing it’ stage should help. Others may respond similarly if you share your new found information and insight with them. Let me stress, just because you are involved in the change process does not mean you have to be happy about it. This is often irrelevant. The wider consequences for refusing to change can be more damaging and ultimately more painful than grudgingly accepting the need for change and implementing the necessary changes. Recruiting help from colleagues can often work well. Take the initiative by helping colleagues and staff to overcome their own concerns and reservations. Recruit help from everyone affected by the changes. Organise informal discussion groups. Become part of the change programme. Sometimes the consequences of change programmes are unpleasant for those involved. The personal consequences of any change programme produce fear amongst the least well informed. Many individuals who go through changes feel as though no one cares about their situation, when in fact those at the top of the organisation are trying to wrestle the best way they can. Many examples come to mind of working with companies who were working so hard to solve the problems associated with change that they failed to communicate these changes to their staff. This can have catastrophic results but it is often quite understandable because the managers are doing the best they can in circumstances which have no instructions! The whole problem with change is that no one - staff or executives – has all the answers. Protecting yourself What if all your efforts result in the loss of your job or your power, authority and influence. These are possibilities which must be considered. Physically assaulting your boss is not an acceptable option (especially for the boss!), although you may believe it is worth it. Sensible, forward thinking people will create an exit strategy whilst implementing the required changes.
A more professional manager will empathise with you – indeed he or she may even admit their own feelings of unease about the situation. Acknowledge between you the possible consequences if the changes were to have personal and negative impacts on your jobs. Work together on the possible solutions. How can you make their lives easier and less stressful? If possible negotiate an agreement with your boss which sets out the conditions for your compliance and help. Ask what the company is prepared to do to ensure that you are amply rewarded if you suspect that your position will be put in jeopardy. Why should you help? If you are a middle manager, you could be in a particularly vulnerable position. Not only could you end up with no job, but you will probably be made responsible for organising and implementing the changes. It is naïve to expect cast iron promises covering every possible consequence for change programmes. Indeed, your boss may end up suffering more than you. Follow up your meeting with a written summary of what was discussed and agreed. Ask your customers, colleagues and clients what you could do to improve the way you deal with them. How can they change to improve things for you? What processes and systems exist which you think could be streamlined or even abolished? Julian Richer is the head of the Richer Sounds company which he has built up from scratch into a £50 million organisation. He has set up something called "the cut the crap committee" which allows and even encourages staff to eliminate stupid rules and regulations which slow the business down. Keep any correspondence which applauds your involvement in the changes. These can be used as part of your curriculum vitae if the changes ultimately eliminate your job. Prepare for the worst-case scenario. Where can you get training to help with the change process? What new skills and knowledge do you need to acquire to protect your position? Many change programmes ultimately improve conditions and working practices – although the benefits are notoriously slow in coming. This is the nature of change within business. When tangible results and improvements are slow in coming, this creates a situation where many staff lose faith in the abilities of those involved in implementing the change. This, in turn, leads to less cooperation which slows the process down even further. Accept that changes take time. Don’t fall into the trap of believing that once the current round of changes are implemented, that everything in the garden will become rosy. Change is here to stay. Get used to it. Change and the future With so much change happening in our lives, it is impossible to be in control of everything. But you can control how you respond to what happens. Knowing what you can control and what you can't, will make a significant difference to the results you achieve and how you feel about changes in your life. For many middle managers in particular, organisational changes could mean the loss of their jobs. Any middle manager who is not preparing him/herself for such an possibility is being foolish and naïve. Those that do not prepare for such an eventuality tend to reinforce their position as a potential ‘victim’; they always seem to be waiting for disaster to strike - when it does, they can tell colleagues and spouses how unfair it was, even though they should have seen it coming. It is an example of how people reinforce their beliefs that others are responsible for their lives and destiny. After all, it is always easier to blame someone else. For some people it is more comforting to absolve themselves of all responsibility. This is a cop out. All too many employees have allowed themselves to become conditioned into believing that they have little say in what happens - perhaps they believe their only role in life is to do as they are told. Persuading others to buy your changes One of the biggest problems I encounter with clients is the unwillingness of business people to be more realistic and candid about the challenges and problems being faced. Changes and improvements can only take place in an honest and open environment. Tell the truth, and communicate it often. Communicate the benefits of the change more than you feel is necessary. And educate those affected, by explaining the real tangible consequences if such changes are not implemented This is not another way of describing threats! Initiate and organise visits for staff to other non-competing companies which exhibit good practices. When workers can speak to people in other companies which have undergone such changes, it allows them to see their own roles in a different light. Return the favour by inviting companies to visit you once you have implemented changes. The success of the Department of Trade and Industry’s "Inside UK Enterprise" scheme is based on this sharing of knowledge, problems and solutions amongst the hundreds of participating companies. Many organisations fall into the trap of failing to communicate – they get so wrapped up in trying to sort out the messy problem, they don’t realise the demoralising effect of the message they are sending to staff who only see countless rounds of secretive and confidential meetings. So, communicate regularly and in detail. If some of the information is thought too commercially sensitive to share with staff, you have a trust issue which must be solved before the changes are eventually implemented. Ask yourself "Why don’t we trust our people?" You and your senior team must learn to change too. Your fears and insecurities will hamper the change process. Helping clients improve their internal communication Dealing with change requires courage backed up by knowledge and strategic thinking. The highest performing companies realise the need to capture the knowledge, insight and different perspectives of all their staff; those at all levels and across all sectors including gender, race and all other minorities. Learning to deal with change involves finding more creative solutions to your problems - do not try to address them all purely on your own or within your management teams – shielding others from the truth is often well meaning but misguided. Acknowledge that you need help – it will often be forthcoming. Then have the confidence to listen and, where appropriate, act on the advice you receive – regardless of where it has come from. The solution is more important than where a person resides within the hierarchy. A wonderful example of this occurred in Monte Carlo. Bay Networks, the third largest computer networking company in the world, brought me in to help them to improve their communication with their top 400 European Partners. Peter George, the European VP knew they had to change their approach and their relationship with these partners. It demanded bold and decisive action. Dave House (formerly number 2 at the Intel Corporation) had been CEO for just 100 days, he’d brought Dave Shrigley with him to become the new Marketing Director. Peter wanted me to challenge him and his new bosses in front of these important partners. He knew some of the issues would be difficult and there was a risk of personal humiliation and even retribution from superiors. Peter explained his rationale "We have an internal set of ‘True North’ values [Dr. Stephen Covey explores the need for values which remain constant through good times and bad in his books The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People and First Things First) which we all had a hand in creating. These values do not shift but remain constant and demand straight talking, facing up to business challenges and going past the point of pain. In short, it means doing the right thing regardless of short term consequences." Honesty like this requires supreme courage. Most people don’t have it. Fear, internal politics and pressure to deliver short-term results moulds the behaviour and therefore the values of too many organisations. How many companies espouse the concepts of ‘customer care’ but only ever speak to customers in the last few days of a financial quarter? House and Shrigley rose to the challenge. During the conference I taunted and cross-examined these executives with unscripted and unrehearsed questions. Once or twice they and other colleagues were hit with unfair and barbed questions. This was a change for me too, but I had to remember that Bay wanted me to give them my worst shots. But how serious had they been about this? Were they going to cut me dead afterwards? As the audience’s ‘conscience’ I asked the difficult questions everyone was thinking but were too nice to ask. Audience feedback confirmed the response Bay had hoped for – the audience realised that the company was serious about dealing with everything head on, without painting pictures which might be perceived as being too optimistic. As for Peter George, his courage to change paid off. His bosses knew what was at stake, and supported him. But no one could have known for sure beforehand. All Bay Networks’ executives were happy (although relieved when the ordeal was over!). The most enlightened leaders realise that you can no longer say one thing and do something else. They too must change. The most successful companies in the future will be those which create an environment in which staff are rewarded for doing the right thing. Indeed, there is growing evidence that the best people choose not to work with unethical organisations. Ethical and successful individuals know that it takes years to earn a reputation for integrity but only moments to lose it. Keeping and attracting the best people is fundamental to the success of any business. Ultimately we have choices but in too many companies business managers instantly resort to the FIFO management tactic; Fit In or F*** Off! What would need to change in your organisation to retain your most trustworthy and value driven staff without such strong arm behaviour? In summing up, changes to the ways we work and live will accelerate in the 21st century. Kicking against change may feel like the best approach – it rarely is. When enduring the effects of change, it is easy to imagine that you are the only person going through emotional stress or trauma. By learning to identify and understand how and why you are responding to it in the ways you are – whether in denial, resistance, exploration or acceptance, you will be able to adapt to even the most fundamental changes. © Roy Sheppard 1999 How you can order a copy of Roy Sheppard's book "Your Personal Survival Guide to the 21st Century" can be found below. Please scroll to the bottom of the page. "....required reading survival guide... an entertaining and occasionally bleak kick in the right direction." The Independent on Sunday "...this timely book helps you create a survival plan for yourselves and your family...Sheppard shows you how and where to start." The Birmingham Post "Good news for the stressed....packed with tips... it is a breath of fresh air." The Sunday Telegraph "guaranteed to offer you inspiration. If you only read one self-help book this year, make it this one." Highstyle Magazine Now in its second edition If you would like us to send you this book, it can be ordered on-line by credit card using our 'secure' server. This means you you can purchase the book safely and easily via the internet. Simply click on the blue underlined words 'ordered on-line' above and fill in your details as prompted. Please ignore any reference to shipping costs - you WILL NOT be charged postage and packing. The software finds it too difficult to believe that! Alternatively you can fill in the order form and fax it back to us with your credit card details. PLEASE NOTE; There is FREE postage and packing to any full postal address in the world (no PO Boxes sorry!) for a limited period. Faxed orders can be accepted on 00 (+44) (0)1761 412615
Price £12.95. All payments are in pounds sterling.
Return to home page |