What's Happening With Organizational Change?

If you're reading this, chances are you've been involved in some kind of organizational change.

So I'd like to hear what you've learned about managing change, as well as your reaction to the new survey below and some of the implications.

Middle Managers Weary of Change

Workplace consultants BlessingWhite, in a study of nearly 900 executives cited in Management-Issues, found that nearly half believe that leading teams through organizational change is seen as extremely challenging or very challenging.

Perhaps the most striking findings are these:

• Middle managers say they are weary of change

• Organizations are meeting more resistance to change at the middle management level

BlessingWhite CEO Christopher Rice adds some context for what's happening. Rice notes that:

1. Leadership Development isn't addressing the substantive how-to's of implementing change and instead are schooled in "spin control" rather than proper execution.
2. The critical part is getting the top management team to have a clear fix on the strategic direction, and how that translates (my italics) for different parts of the organization.
3. Research on high-performing leaders indicates that most leaders score lower on 'connection skills' - effectiveness in providing meaning, not just information, and in demonstrating empathy and building trust.
4. Consultants may contribute by helping to mobilize the other essential players in the organizational shift.

I've written before on organizational change and invite you to have a look at the articles here. What strikes me from this study, though, is the straight talk about middle managers being weary of change.

It's Not Just About Organizational Change Theory

Are you surprised? I'm not.  Since much of my work is  performing  #4, I'm involved daily with corporate changes and helping to make them happen smoothly. For some time now, I've had the feeling that many managers were hitting the wall with changes. But not just the implementation. It also involves issues of personal wellness, stress, and security.

At the same time changes are coming at a rapid pace, supporting structures are collapsing. People are being asked, overtly or suggestively, to work much longer hours. Pay increases, if any, aren't always consistent with those demands and often don't equate with the degree of one's successful performance. At the same time, employees and managers in the U.S. are being asked to pay more and more of their health insurance premiums. That's a double-dip into discretionary income. Toss in an increase in job insecurity as well as less time with one's family, and you've got a formula for weariness.   

What Can Leaders Do?

Certainly addressing #3 above will help from an implementation perspective. Under stress, we all seek meaning and, ultimately, hope (Both Bob Ceneck and Dr. Ellen Weber provide some guiding principles that will help leaders in this area).

I'd like to serve up another suggestion. Maybe it's time to start asking "How much is enough?" Whether it has to do with profit margins, market share, or speed, I think that's a reasonable question. Organizations are beginning to look like balloons being inflated. At some point, they will burst. I believe that's what we're seeing in the weariness expressed by managers.

One of the things I learned in the military is that you always take care of your people. They have to live to fight another  and be in shape to do so. Tired soldiers and tired managers don't perform well. And that can be dangerous in business life as well as war. So you pick your battles when you can, and you watch closely to see when it's time to rest.

Perhaps its time to start asking "What is reasonable and profitable in what realistic period of time?" And then measure it against the well-being of the people who have to do it.

I know that there is an entire industry built upon increasing "employee engagement." If that's really a concern, then it is time for "executive engagement" to receive equal attention. According to the BlessingWhite study, many executives are not engaged once a change in direction is made. A good first step would be to learn how to do #3; show up in the "field" to do it; and assess whether or not the plan and the timetable is healthy for those who have to implement it.

That's my first cut at this. What are you thinking and what can you add that will be helpful for everybody involved in change?

Comments

[Kent Blumberg]

Lots to chew on here. I'd like to comment on employee engagement/executive engagement. Part of the problem might be in seeing these as two separate populations, when, in fact, executives are also employees. And both employees and executives are people will real human emotions, worries and frailties. In a change effort, ignore the needs of anyone in the chain, from CEO to floor sweeper, and you are courting failure. Everyone needs to be engaged, not just the CEO and not just the front line.

[Steve Roesler]

Hello, Kent,

You stated much more clearly what I was trying to get at. Thank you.

Some of the early change management programs set up the employees as "targets" of change. That made the senior people the "hunters", if you will, and created an artificial dichotomy at the very time when a company needed to have a unifiying mindset.

I see the same thing happening in an unspoken way in a lot of the engagement literature and "programs." What we're proposing here is Total Employee Engagement (TEE for the acronym inclined--ouch), or something like that.

[Wally Bock]

I know that I'm still a cynic after all these years, but one thing you haven't mentioned, Steve, is that change and re-organization/mergers in particular, are great ways to avoid being accountable for results. "Yes, I know our profits are down, but we're reorganizing." After we reorganize, of course, we'll be installing that new IT system, and then the business intelligence system. We could be responsible for results then, but we really should do some strategic planning. Said, planning will surely result in a reorganization/merger and so the cycle begins again.

[Steve Roesler]

You know, Wally, I haven't mentioned the whole re-org thing for the very reason you mentioned. In fact, about 4 years ago I began to give a polite "Thank you, no" to engagements that were only focused on reorganization.

What is meaningful is almost always underneath the re-organization initiative. When people are up for addressing those substantive issues--and part of the real solution is some kind of sensible re-structuring--then I'm in.

As for being cynical: I think that really means that your depth of experience combined with the reality of what you've seen equals a discerning look at "all things reorganizational."

BTW: I started to comment on your dead-on post today and then got involved in a phone call. Will head back to the blog later when things lighten up a bit.

Thanks as always for offering your commentary, experience, and valuable time.