Change or die!

How your management style will effect implementing change in the organization?

We’re all creatures of habit, and take great comfort in doing what we’ve always done. We like routine, from the minute we wake up (Yawn, stretch, get up), to the way we approach our work. We feel comfortable with routine, and familiar with the steps we need to take to get our job done.

This holds true, until we realize something isn’t working anymore, or isn’t producing the result we used to. You may be familiar with the definition of insanity:” Doing the same things over and over again, yet expecting a different result”. Very often we get caught in that vicious circle, which to get out of proves extremely difficult.

But change is inevitable. We can no longer expect things to be the same as they were, and we often find ourselves in a position were some drastic change is required.

Once we accept that change is required, we need to put some thought into the way we’re going to inflict (interesting choice of word, isn’t it?) that change onto a situation. At a senior management level, that change can have implications that are wide spread, and can have a ripple effect, which is difficult to predict.

I have recently been involved with a company, which at the highest level, the management style was very liberal, almost “management by consensus”. At directors’ level, there has to be a level of consensus, before any changes can be taken and implemented. For a day-to-day running of any organization, that management style can prove challenging. As I’ve experienced it, implementing company-wide structural changes, that management style proved inefficient, and downright counter-productive.

One management issue that could be killing change and innovation efforts is an obsession by many managers that a decision can’t be reached unless a team of people comes to agreement. It has certainly been my observation with my previous engagement.

There are two issues that seem to contribute heavily to the current state of “can’t we all get along” management. First, people are engaged in win-lose competition with one another on a team. If a suggestion or idea is posed, other team members will jump on the person making the suggestion in order to discredit the person rather than looking at the idea itself. Secondly, people don’t want to “rock the boat” and look for ways to comply with a higher-level manager rather than seek novel approaches. Managers are not trained to look at conflict as a positive state, but without conflicting ideas, the scope for growth is very limited.

To make a substantial change in an organization or a situation, a healthy debate must take place, encouraging different views to be presented, contested, and explained. In business, we’re not all equal: we come from different skills, with various level of experience and knowledge, and have different associations and ways of thinking. Companies won’t reach greatness by having everyone agreeing on everything. That’s were the Benevolent Dictator comes into action. “Benevolent” means you do the right thing for the right reasons for the greatest good; the “dictator” piece just means when the time for talking is done, someone’s got to decide. A strong leader, will take all views into consideration, and then make a decision, which will move the company in the right direction.

In many cases, a 3^rd party need to get involved: a consultant, a change manager, a business coach, or any other “outsider”. It could also be an internal Scapegoat, a high level employee, who is a bulldozer, and not afraid of the consequensed, as she believes in the cause and the greater good of the company. Someone who is emotionally removed from the company and situation, has a result oriented approach, and is not scared of “rocking the boat” to reach the desired outcome.

At the end of the day, the 3^rd party can only recommend and manage the process, but can not make the final decision. The leader needs to become the Benevolent Dictator, and make the final decision. It won’t be easy, but change will happen… or the company will die…