Why change management is an oxymoron

By Annie Waite, Editor of the Internal Comms Hub (North America), Melcrum

"For organizations today, change is continuous, unavoidable and, increasingly, unmanageable. Mergers and acquisitions, downsizing and globalization send shockwaves through the workplace."

So says Richard Layton, principal and creative director of Transform Communications consultancy in his article on the Internal Comms Hub (article currently only available to members, I'm afraid).

This situation, however, says Richard, is a golden opportunity for business communicators to reframe the notion of change management within their organizations.

He says that the question to ask is not whether your organization is capable of managing change, but whether it can actually manage to change at all. For example:

• Can it innovate its way to the top of a maturing market?
• Can it reignite passionate customer service to win back business lost through complacency?
• Can it successfully execute a complex merger to create an industry powerhouse?

According to Richard (left), equipping individual employees with personal insight and practical skills to navigate change themselves determines whether the organization is capable of change.

“The bottom line is change or die" he says. “Success is no longer achieved through the capacity to manage change; it demands the capacity to manifest it.”

Do you agree with Richard?

This communications professional definitely does – I wanted to open up the discussion and bring to your attention one of the comments left as an online response to Richard's article:

"Hooray Richard!

Over the past few years I have been arguing that the concept of change management as known and practiced in business should be left to die. I, together with one of my good friends reached the conclusion that the role of leaders, managers, supervisors and all others in work situations was no longer about managing change as we had all been led to believe. Rather we came to understand that change in fact was the real work. Everyday I become more and more convinced that the first and likely most important priority of any role profile (written or not) is change.

If we as communicators are not seeing change as our work, we are in all likelihood headed for an early and unplanned retirement."
Ken Milloy Strategic Connections Inc.

Comments

[Bennet Simonton]

The need for change is continuous as Richard says, Annie. But most companies are managing their employees in a way that stifles their natural creativity, innovation and productivity actually demotivating and demotivating them. In order to be able to respond successfully to the need for change, managements must get rid of demotivators.

Most managements use the traditional top-down command and control approach to managing people, an approach that naturally demotivates and demoralizes employees. The opposite approach achieves the opposite result and unleashes a mother lode of creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation, and commitment, far more than necessary to meet any need for change and to beat every competitor.

To learn more about this approach, please read these Articles starting with the article "Leadership, Good or Bad".

Best regards, Ben

[Annie Waite]

Hi Ben – thanks for your message. I think you've made such an important point. After all, even one demotivator can have a detrimental effect on engagement, and for many of us, the opportunity to provide suggestions and feedback to our organisations, and to feel like you're being listened to, is vital for maintaining motivation. But I'd say it's important to make sure managers have a good grasp of what the demotivators are for each individual employee before deciding on a rigid management style or company culture.

Playing Devil's advocate again, wouldn't individual, or cultural, or generational preferences influence an employee’s management style preference, in the same way it would for their choice of communication channel? I’d say that what can demotivate one person, can actually be an important factor in motivating another.

For example, a manager might need to feel empowered – perhaps by having the authority to have the final decision on something - but their employee might then be demotivated by the top-down approach in action. In contrast, some cultures and employees NEED the top-down management style (http://www.internalcommshub.com/open/news/shrm08.us.shtml), and an employee who is encouraged to be creative and innovative, and to take responsibility for decision-making themselves might be demotivated by just those very factors.

I'm not saying either approach or any management style is right or wrong, but to garner the most positive reactions and performance from employees, I'm strongly in favour of, insofar as is possible/feasible, tailoring management style to the need of the individual being managed.

[Bennet Simonton]

Annie,

I managed people for over 30 years, as few as 22 and as many as 1300. I made all the possible errors but found superior fixes that allowed me to successfully turn around four different management disasters. In every case, I had to train subordinate managers and supervisors in how to effectively manage their people.

Style is not relevant and only limits success. The way to manage people is always the same. The manager must continuously ask what the employees need to do a better job and then supply it or convince them it is not needed. This approach is one of helping each employee to become self-directed and self-motivated and it causes employees to unleash their full potential of creativity, innovation, productivity, motivation, and commitment on their work. Morale and productivity soar and people literally love to come to work and blow away competitors.

There are more things to do as explained in my articles, but the approach is always the same. Listening to employees, and I mean really listening and responding respectfully, is the road to the same managerial nirvana I experienced for many years.

Best regards, Ben