When is change not necessary in the Workplace?
In today’s business climate the key to growth and survival is to remain in a ‘constant change’ mode.
Companies are forced to implement drastic changes in an effort to keep up with competitors and to survive.
A knowledge-based economy and technology-driven transformations require swift adjustments.
It is true that the constant buzz about winning games, competing, innovating, and staying ahead puts pressure on all of us.
But we should not take all changes for granted and accept all changes in the workplace as justified.
It is hard to bring about changes and, at times, harder to justify them.
Since leaders and managers are adopting a ‘participative style’ of working, it is healthy that everyone applies their mind to rationally justify each new change.
Many times changes introduced by upper management are not a solution to a problem.
In such situations, it is important for team-mates to discuss the implications of introducing the change versus continuing on the current line of action.
Changes are not always necessary
The following instances prove that changes are not always necessary.
The reasoning behind the change is the problem.
1. Introducing change is analogous to building a house.
There are high-priority things to do and other things that just ‘come along’
In organizations there is a similar tendency to think that since we are introducing a lot of new things why not add in a couple more changes and totally revamp the way we work.
By thinking like this a manager forgets to evaluate if these changes will affect the bottom line and staff contentment.
These small changes may cause ripples of dissatisfaction and the positive effect that the necessary changes were going to produce may be jeopardized.
2. Any change which does not have a strong research-backed proposal should be critically examined.
A system wherein you can freely express your opinions without fear of reprisal is essential.
3. Often companies restructure by ‘blindly copying’ what the competitors are doing.
Questions such as the following need to be asked:
• What is the problem?
• Why is it a problem?
• Is there research to prove that the changes we plan to implement would help us solve it?
• What will happen if we do not change at all?
You must always understand the purpose behind the change your manager is proposing.
There is enough research to prove that ‘me-too’ changes would either, not be successfully implemented in organizations, or they would fail to produce the results expected by the change agents.
Large companies with many layers and bureaucratic styled structures do not have an open communication system but you are perhaps able to voice your opinions when discussions about change begin.
In general, it is hard to ignore, “The boss wants us to do it” or “We will be given the pink slip if we do not do it” feeling, however despite the buzz for change, it may not always be the best course of action.
what your wrote for 3, about blindly copying what competitors are doing is a key element. I recall reading in business magazines time and time again how companies are re-strategizing and how they all sound remarkably similar.
Great post!!!
Hello Mitesh,
I’ve checked out your Blog and read your points on Brainstorming - great information and suggestions.
It has been Bookmarked.
I especially liked, and I quote: “…not everyone can lead a successful brainstorming session. Many times brainstorming sessions are treated like meetings with a formal agenda and documentation that must be read and presented etc:
There is no better way to ring the death knell of Creativity than using this format.
Thank you for the nice comments,
Regards,
Gloria