Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-03-21
- man. utd. silences internal opposition – never a good idea for a company, we need to be challenged http://bit.ly/8Ypqhd #
Checklist for organizational change
One of the most famous theorists of organizational change is John Kotter, of Harvard University. Last year he published “A Sense of Urgency”, which is reviewed here in the Financial Times.The review quotes from this new book:
“Change is shifting from episodic to continuous. With episodic change, the challenge of creating a sufficient sense of urgency comes in occasional spurts. With continuous change, creating and sustaining a sufficient sense of urgency are always a necessity.”
This is true. But the key word is sufficient. What does that mean? How can you be sure that you don’t create an organizational climate where people run around like headless chickens? When do you need urgency and when do you not need urgency? How long can something be said to be urgent before people become indifferent? Are there degrees of urgency?
Managers always need to think carefully before applying gurus’ ideas to their own organization. Urgency in one department is not the same as urgency in another department. This week’s urgency is not the same as last week’s. The urgency for a particular organizational change can itself change, and so on ……
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-03-14
- can pharma firms advertise on twitter? is 140 characters enough to mention risks? Need to include a link+really.. http://tinyurl.com/yd7q7k9 #
Organizational change – where is it from?
The organizational change management field is comparatively new. It has really only been in existence for the last 50 years or so. This excerpt from an academic article I wrote discusses the origins of the field.
There is an enormous amount of academic literature and an enormous amount of practitioner literature on the topic of change, where the most popular books sell in millions (over six million copies of In Search of Excellence; two million copies of Reengineering the Corporation), which indicates the widespread acceptance of the need for change. This orthodoxy has roots in the social developments of the last forty years.
The post-war era was one of relative stability until the 1960s, when there was social upheaval (protests against the Vietnam war, the student revolts of May 1968, the women’s movement), technological upheaval (the development of computers and transistors, the space race), and economic upheaval (the oil embargo of 1973, the “Japanese juggernaut” built on high quality products and high productivity). The scale of the resulting changes may or may not be fundamentally different to anything that had happened before, but they were important, and they created an impression that major change was happening and needed to be addressed.
The growing importance and economic power of Germany and Japan, together with the (relative) decline in the US and British economies seemed to indicate that there was a need to overhaul radically the traditional American and British ways of doing business. The emergence of Thatcherism and Reaganism, which called for a new enterprise culture and a much-reduced role for the state, was also a significant factor in creating a climate where change was seen as a sine qua non of future prosperity. The attrition rate of companies is huge; only 16 of the largest 100 US companies at the beginning of the 1900s still survived at the end of the 20th century, a fact which certainly implies that change is crucial to survival.
Twitter Weekly Updates for 2010-03-07
- corporate social responsibility – not a concept private company Ineos understands. http://tinyurl.com/yemzfnx #
- change at AstraZeneca – 1,200 layoffs. Was there no alternative? http://tinyurl.com/yc562×3 #
Only 41% of organizational changes are successful
41% of changes are successful? At least that is what IBM says. How do they know? They carried out a major survey of 1500 change leaders and produced a report, which you can get here.
Among the highlights:
Most CEOs consider themselves and their organizations to be executing change poorly
Achieving project success does not hinge primarily on technology – instead, success depends largely on people.
Nothing new there, really. But IBM then say
Four common factors helped these practitioners address their greatest project challenges and when used in combination, they provide a synergistic benefit that was even greater than the sum of their individual impacts.
So what are the four factors? According to IBM they are
- Real Insights, Real Actions. Strive for a full, realistic awareness and understanding of the upcoming challenges and complexities, then follow with actions to address them.
- Solid Methods, Solid Benefits. Use a systematic approach to change is focused on outcomes and closely aligned with formal project management methodology.
- Better Skills, Better Change. Leverage resources appropriately to demonstrate top management
sponsorship, assign dedicated change managers and empower employees to enact change. - Right Investment, Right Impact. Allocate the right amount for change management by understanding which types of investments can offer the best returns, in terms of greater project success.
Again, not much new. But remember – successful change management does not ignore the basics.
