If a change initiative isn't working, don't automatically think it's the result of wrong-headed employee resistance
Welcome to our show, ladies and gentlemen.
Let’s play the Change Management Blame Game!
Annnnnd… Here’s our first question: a large group of well-chosen and engaged employees participates in a training program but the group’s behaviors don’t change. Who’s to blame?
Our second question: the same large group of well-chosen and engaged employees is the focus of a change initiative, but ultimately the group’s behaviors don’t change. Now, who’s to blame?
Who’s To Blame?
In the first scenario, you probably blamed the trainer or the designer of the training program.
They had an intelligent, motivated set of trainees whom they should have been able to mold so that their behaviors would change and the company would see cost savings or revenue gains. Yet, despite these favorable conditions, something–the curriculum, its delivery, its applicability to the business–went wrong. If the company wants to avoid a similar outcome in the future, it should change its training or the people leading its training. After all, you can hardly blame the lot of such eager employees, right? The training people are to blame!
In the second scenario, you probably blamed the employees who were the focus of the change initiative. They probably didn’t understand how important the change was. They resisted the efforts that were made for the company to realize cost savings or revenue gains. If the company is looking to avoid a similar outcome in the future, it should make changes to that miserable lot of employees who don’t know and don’t care about the company. After all, you can hardly blame the change initiative or the leaders of the initiative, right? The employees are to blame!
Don’t Automatically Turn to the Employees
By this point you’ve likely grasped that both scenarios are identical.
The company has one or more people charged with creating the conditions necessary to change the behaviors of a group of employees to achieve a desired organizational outcome.
Yet, when we insert the words “training program” and “trainer” into the failed scenario, it’s easy to blame those elements. In contrast, when we insert the words “change initiative” and “leader” into the failed scenario, it’s easy to blame… the employees.
In either scenario, the change agent and the change audience could be to blame, but playing the blame game gives us a different set of usual suspects to call on.
The point is not that managers should reconsider the intelligence and engagement of their employees because it’s likely they already invest heavily in talent assessment and management tools. Rather, the point is that managers should consider the idea that employees who fail to comply with a given change initiative may not be at fault.
Perhaps these employees are providing the so called “gift of feedback.” It is possible that the change is not as desirable as managers may think. There may be adverse consequences that they see and managers do not. Alternatively, it is possible the senior manager that is the “face” of the change initiative (i.e., a person rather than the initiative) has mishandled what should have been a compelling opportunity.
For example, in a training session, no matter how respected the trainer may be, if something was wrong, people would question both the message and the messenger. That logic should apply to change initiatives: no matter how respected the leader may be, if there’s a problem, managers should consider both the message and the messenger.
When you stop blaming employee resistance, you may discover an opportunity to improve the change initiative and the leader.
0 comments:
Post a Comment