Management Means Doing Things Right
When change is imposed, clearly the most important determinant of "getting through the swamp", is the ability of leadership to. The literature on the subject indicates that the nature of the change is secondary to the perceptions that employees have regarding the ability, competence, and credibility of senior and middle management.
If you are to manage change effectively, you need to be aware that there are three distinct times zones where leadership is important. We can call these Preparing For the Journey, Slogging Through The Swamp, and After Arrival. We will look more carefully at each of these.
In an organization where there is faith in the abilities of formal leaders, employees will look towards the leaders for a number of things. During drastic change times, employees will expect effective and sensible planning, confident and effective decision-making, and regular, complete communication that is timely. Also during these times of change, employees will perceive leadership as supportive, concerned and committed to their welfare, while at the same time recognizing that tough decisions need to be made. The best way to summarize is that there is a climate of trust between leader and the rest of the team. The existence of this trust, brings hope for better times in the future, and that makes coping with drastic change much easier.
In organizations characterized by poor leadership, employees expect nothing positive. In a climate of distrust, employees learn that leaders will act in indecipherable ways and in ways that do not seem to be in anyone's best interests. Poor leadership means an absence of hope, which, if allowed to go on for too long, results in an organization becoming completely nonfunctioning. The organization must deal with the practical impact of unpleasant change, but more importantly, must labor under the weight of employees who have given up, have no faith in the system or in the ability of leaders to turn the organization around.
Leadership before, during and after change implementation is THE key to getting through the swamp. Unfortunately, if haven't established a track record of effective leadership, by the time you have to deal with difficult changes, it may be too late.
It would be a mistake to assume that preparing for the journey takes place only after the destination has been defined or chosen. When we talk about preparing for the change journey, we are talking about leading in a way that lays the foundation or groundwork for ANY changes that may occur in the future. Preparing is about building resources, by building healthy organizations in the first place. Much like healthy people, who are better able to cope with infection or disease than unhealthy people, organization that are healthy in the first place are better able to deal with change.
As a leader you need to establish credibility and a track record of effective decision making, so that there is trust in your ability to figure out what is necessary to bring the organization through.
Leaders play a critical role during change implementation, the period from the announcement of change through the installation of the change. During this middle period the organization is the most unstable, characterized by confusion, fear, loss of direction, reduced productivity, and lack of clarity about direction and mandate. It can be a period of emotionalism, with employees grieving for what is lost, and initially unable to look to the future.
During this period, effective leaders need to focus on two things. First, the feelings and confusion of employees must be acknowledged and validated. Second, the leader must work with employees to begin creating a new vision of the altered workplace, and helping employees to understand the direction of the future. Focusing only on feelings, may result in wallowing. That is why it is necessary to begin the movement into the new ways or situations. Focusing only on the new vision may result in the perception that the leader is out of touch, cold and uncaring. A key part of leadership in this phase knows when to focus on the pain, and when to focus on building and moving into the future.
After Arrival
In a sense you never completely arrive, but here we are talking about the period where the initial instability of massive change has been reduced. People have become less emotional, and more stable, and with effective leadership during the previous phases, are now more open to locking in to the new directions, mandate and ways of doing things.
His is an ideal time for leaders to introduce positive new change, such as examination of unwieldy procedures or Total Quality Management. The critical thing here is that leaders must now offer hope that the organization is working towards being better, by solving problems and improving the quality of work life. While the new vision of the organization may have begun while people were slogging through the swamp, this is the time to complete the process, and make sure that people buy into it, and understand their roles in this new organization.
Playing a leadership role in the three phases is not easy. Not only do you have a responsibility to lead, but as an employee yourself, you have to deal with your own reactions to the change, and your role in it. However, if you are ineffective in leading change, you will bear a very heavy personal load. Since you are accountable for the performance of your unit, you will have to deal with the ongoing loss of productivity that can result from poorly managed change, not to mention the potential impact on your own enjoyment of your job.
One of the least mentioned effects of change relates to how it affects the manager leading that change, and his or her ability to undertake the leadership role. We have already talked about the effects of change on the individual employee, and of course managers are subject to the same reactions, resistances and strains. Some types of change, such as restructuring, or downsizing can put considerable strain on the leaders of an organization.
One primary concern regarding change is the stress it imposes on those undergoing the change. Managers, because they have obligations to their staff, not only have to deal with change as employees but also need to carry some of the concerns of their staffs. In the case of downsizing, the stress levels can be extremely high, because the manager is charged with conveying very upsetting information.
Stress is part of the job, but in times of change, it is critical that you recognize that it may cause you to act in ways that are less effective than usual. As with anything connected with change, the major concern is not short term but long term. If your stress levels result in marked loss of effectiveness, the risk is that a vicious cycle will be set up, where ineffective leadership results in creating more long term problems, which increases your stress, which reduces your effectiveness even more.
Common response to unpleasant change is to ignore the situation. Avoidance can take many forms. Most commonly, the avoiding manager plays only a minimal role in moving the organization through the swamp. After announcing the change and doing the minimum required, the manager "hides" from the change, through delegation, or attending to other work. This tactic involves treating things as "business as usual".
The outcomes of this tactic can be devastating. By avoiding situations, the manager abdicates any leadership role, when staff needs it most, during and after significant change. In addition, the avoidance results in the manager becoming out of touch with the people and realities of the organization.
While avoidance serves a need for the manager in the short run, it destroys the manager's credibility, and results in poor decisions. The long term consequence of such action is that the organization tends to deteriorate in terms of morale, effectiveness and productivity. Sometimes this deterioration is irreversible.
Sometimes the manager deals with change by denying its impact. Usually, the denying manager takes a very logical approach to change. Decisions get made, systems are put in place, or new procedures are developed. Unfortunately, this "logical" approach denies the impact of change on the people in the organization.
The denying manager tends to refuse to understand "what the big deal is", and shows little empathy with employees in the organization.
As with avoidance the denying tactic tends to drop the manager's credibility and destroy any personal loyalty on the part of employees.
Managers are put under stress by change, and that stress, if mishandled can result in loss of managerial effectiveness. Managers need to be alert to the signs of stress upon their performance.
A common management tactic is to avoid involvement in change when that involvement is unpleasant. The affects of this withdrawal can be lethal to the organization and to the manager.
Another common tactic is denial of the effects of change. Managers who do this tend to under- estimate the impact of the change, and demonstrate an inability to respond to employees’ emotional reactions to change.
When change is imposed, clearly the most important determinant of "getting through the swamp", is the ability of leadership to. The literature on the subject indicates that the nature of the change is secondary to the perceptions that employees have regarding the ability, competence, and credibility of senior and middle management.
If you are to manage change effectively, you need to be aware that there are three distinct times zones where leadership is important. We can call these Preparing For the Journey, Slogging Through The Swamp, and After Arrival. We will look more carefully at each of these.
In an organization where there is faith in the abilities of formal leaders, employees will look towards the leaders for a number of things. During drastic change times, employees will expect effective and sensible planning, confident and effective decision-making, and regular, complete communication that is timely. Also during these times of change, employees will perceive leadership as supportive, concerned and committed to their welfare, while at the same time recognizing that tough decisions need to be made. The best way to summarize is that there is a climate of trust between leader and the rest of the team. The existence of this trust, brings hope for better times in the future, and that makes coping with drastic change much easier.
In organizations characterized by poor leadership, employees expect nothing positive. In a climate of distrust, employees learn that leaders will act in indecipherable ways and in ways that do not seem to be in anyone's best interests. Poor leadership means an absence of hope, which, if allowed to go on for too long, results in an organization becoming completely nonfunctioning. The organization must deal with the practical impact of unpleasant change, but more importantly, must labor under the weight of employees who have given up, have no faith in the system or in the ability of leaders to turn the organization around.
Leadership before, during and after change implementation is THE key to getting through the swamp. Unfortunately, if haven't established a track record of effective leadership, by the time you have to deal with difficult changes, it may be too late.
It would be a mistake to assume that preparing for the journey takes place only after the destination has been defined or chosen. When we talk about preparing for the change journey, we are talking about leading in a way that lays the foundation or groundwork for ANY changes that may occur in the future. Preparing is about building resources, by building healthy organizations in the first place. Much like healthy people, who are better able to cope with infection or disease than unhealthy people, organization that are healthy in the first place are better able to deal with change.
As a leader you need to establish credibility and a track record of effective decision making, so that there is trust in your ability to figure out what is necessary to bring the organization through.
Leaders play a critical role during change implementation, the period from the announcement of change through the installation of the change. During this middle period the organization is the most unstable, characterized by confusion, fear, loss of direction, reduced productivity, and lack of clarity about direction and mandate. It can be a period of emotionalism, with employees grieving for what is lost, and initially unable to look to the future.
During this period, effective leaders need to focus on two things. First, the feelings and confusion of employees must be acknowledged and validated. Second, the leader must work with employees to begin creating a new vision of the altered workplace, and helping employees to understand the direction of the future. Focusing only on feelings, may result in wallowing. That is why it is necessary to begin the movement into the new ways or situations. Focusing only on the new vision may result in the perception that the leader is out of touch, cold and uncaring. A key part of leadership in this phase knows when to focus on the pain, and when to focus on building and moving into the future.
After Arrival
In a sense you never completely arrive, but here we are talking about the period where the initial instability of massive change has been reduced. People have become less emotional, and more stable, and with effective leadership during the previous phases, are now more open to locking in to the new directions, mandate and ways of doing things.
His is an ideal time for leaders to introduce positive new change, such as examination of unwieldy procedures or Total Quality Management. The critical thing here is that leaders must now offer hope that the organization is working towards being better, by solving problems and improving the quality of work life. While the new vision of the organization may have begun while people were slogging through the swamp, this is the time to complete the process, and make sure that people buy into it, and understand their roles in this new organization.
Playing a leadership role in the three phases is not easy. Not only do you have a responsibility to lead, but as an employee yourself, you have to deal with your own reactions to the change, and your role in it. However, if you are ineffective in leading change, you will bear a very heavy personal load. Since you are accountable for the performance of your unit, you will have to deal with the ongoing loss of productivity that can result from poorly managed change, not to mention the potential impact on your own enjoyment of your job.
One of the least mentioned effects of change relates to how it affects the manager leading that change, and his or her ability to undertake the leadership role. We have already talked about the effects of change on the individual employee, and of course managers are subject to the same reactions, resistances and strains. Some types of change, such as restructuring, or downsizing can put considerable strain on the leaders of an organization.
One primary concern regarding change is the stress it imposes on those undergoing the change. Managers, because they have obligations to their staff, not only have to deal with change as employees but also need to carry some of the concerns of their staffs. In the case of downsizing, the stress levels can be extremely high, because the manager is charged with conveying very upsetting information.
Stress is part of the job, but in times of change, it is critical that you recognize that it may cause you to act in ways that are less effective than usual. As with anything connected with change, the major concern is not short term but long term. If your stress levels result in marked loss of effectiveness, the risk is that a vicious cycle will be set up, where ineffective leadership results in creating more long term problems, which increases your stress, which reduces your effectiveness even more.
Common response to unpleasant change is to ignore the situation. Avoidance can take many forms. Most commonly, the avoiding manager plays only a minimal role in moving the organization through the swamp. After announcing the change and doing the minimum required, the manager "hides" from the change, through delegation, or attending to other work. This tactic involves treating things as "business as usual".
The outcomes of this tactic can be devastating. By avoiding situations, the manager abdicates any leadership role, when staff needs it most, during and after significant change. In addition, the avoidance results in the manager becoming out of touch with the people and realities of the organization.
While avoidance serves a need for the manager in the short run, it destroys the manager's credibility, and results in poor decisions. The long term consequence of such action is that the organization tends to deteriorate in terms of morale, effectiveness and productivity. Sometimes this deterioration is irreversible.
Sometimes the manager deals with change by denying its impact. Usually, the denying manager takes a very logical approach to change. Decisions get made, systems are put in place, or new procedures are developed. Unfortunately, this "logical" approach denies the impact of change on the people in the organization.
The denying manager tends to refuse to understand "what the big deal is", and shows little empathy with employees in the organization.
As with avoidance the denying tactic tends to drop the manager's credibility and destroy any personal loyalty on the part of employees.
Managers are put under stress by change, and that stress, if mishandled can result in loss of managerial effectiveness. Managers need to be alert to the signs of stress upon their performance.
A common management tactic is to avoid involvement in change when that involvement is unpleasant. The affects of this withdrawal can be lethal to the organization and to the manager.
Another common tactic is denial of the effects of change. Managers who do this tend to under- estimate the impact of the change, and demonstrate an inability to respond to employees’ emotional reactions to change.