Without the ability to adapt to change and embrace new processes,
corporations of today can suffer the agonizing death of stagnation.
Common to many of the top leaders of global organizations is the belief
that the only constant in the business world is change. The ability to
adapt efficiently, quickly, and without hesitation is coercing corporate
entities to redefine processes, realign business units to match such
processes, and flatten the management structure.
However, the process of managing change in
the current business environment has come under question; whereas many
companies attempt to modify business practices to align themselves with
market pressures, only a few actually succeed. The failure of these
companies to implement change management programs that are effective has
resulted in the overall evaluation of managing change in a business
environment, and the resulting variables that should be controlled to
ensure a successful change process.
Anderson, Klein and Stuart attempt to address the systemic reasons why
organizational change attempts to fail in their paper entitled
Why Change is a Conscious State.
These authors believe that while many companies institute change in
organizational structure, the vast majority of these companies fail at
this attempt due to a failure to address the four quadrants of change:
individual/internal, individual/external, group/internal, and
group/external. The basis for failure for these companies is a failure to
address these change quadrants as a system, as opposed to individual
sections that should be clinically addressed. In addition, the authors
also indicate that organizational change cannot be effective without a
shift in the mindset of the leadership and the employees of that
organization; a spiritual shift in consciousness or the inculcation of a
change in the perception of the total human experience.
Although it seems that the authors of this essay have adopted a stratagem
that seems to address the control of change in a systematic and thorough
manner, the lack of reasoning and the appeal to mysticism in the
explanation of the need for a shift in mind-set raises alarm. However,
the approach that these authors have taken with respect to addressing
change as a system, rather than as a series of separate, disparate events
is intriguing. Nevertheless, the system is not based on concrete
ideology; rather, it focuses on intangible cultural aspects of a company
that play an important role in the adaptation of any change management
plan, but cannot be defined or quantified in any sustainable or verifiable
manner. Although the authors attempt to address controls and procedures,
these forces are not discussed in a pragmatic manner; rather, they are
tied inextricably into the myths and hopes of employees. In reality, it
cannot be denied that subtleties such as corporate myth or personal
cognizance play important and even critical roles in the process of change
management, but these factors are better dealt with at a philosophical
level, rather than a practical one. In effect, these factors should be
considerations, rather than definitions.
Axelrod's Terms of engagement:
Changing the way we change organizations
is much more pragmatic in its approach to change management, and attempts
to use change as a method of controlling it. Amazingly, Axelrod calls for
the dissolution of the 20 year old process of change management. His
methodology for controlling the change process is called Engagement
Management, and it provides a refreshing and visionary approach to the
management of organizational change. Axelrod claims that change
management is fraught with incongruencies, including allowing the few to
decide for the many, isolating leaders and organization members from one
another, separating the design process from the implementation process,
adopting the parallel organization but not its underlying values, making
process improvements primary and cultural shifts secondary, and
incongruencies in the process itself. The fundamental flaw in change
management is an inability to allow change to flow freely through the
organization; rather, it is controlled and dictated by the few powerful
mangers at the top of the executive food change. Engagement management
presents a new paradigm for companies to use for managing change. Axelrod
goes on to state that four key principles define engagement management:
widening the circle of involvement, connecting people to each other,
creating communities for action, and embracing democracy. These values
broaden the appeal of change, and help to ensure a vibrant, creative, and
organization-based approach to change management.
The singular importance of Axelrod's message is too critical to be
overlooked or ignored by the business community. Through the enlistment
and engagement of the company as a community, change becomes a process,
rather than a net result. As more people are brought into the management
process, a critical mass of people who believe in the change process will
aid the company in its transformation process. This also prevents the few
from deciding for the many. It allows field specialists to voice concerns
and add input to the process, which can only strengthen the resolve of
company constituents and process of change management. As these people
interact with each other, ideas and information are exchanged, resulting
in creativity and accomplishment. This also results in a sense of
community, particularly when individuals become known to each other, and
stop being stereotypes and labels. Not only with this smooth the
workflow, it will result in a more positive work environment. Finally,
the democratic process that Axelrod suggests for his theory appeals to the
fundamental need of self expression in all people in the world. It
addresses a desire to be seen, to be heard, to have an opinion count and
be considered important. The results of such a change in change
management would be the assembly of trust, mutual respect, and confidence
in the company, as this particular value is one that appeals to the human
spirit.