By Mauro Libi Crestani. Business
hire management teams to figure out new ways to solve customer problems,
improve products, create new revenue streams, and reduce costs. This involves
creating new ideas for change. Technology, innovation, products and the way of
doing business means coming up with new ideas for staying competitive in
today’s quick moving market. Every change starts with an idea—a vision of what
could happen to create a tangible benefit for an organization. But ideas are
not enough.
Change initiatives are not just whole scale
business transformations. These make-or-break moments can also be leadership
changes, restructurings, culture changes, system implementations, operational
excellence programs, workforce programs or new market expansions. This involves
time and money. Given all the investment in change and its importance to a
company’s future health it is important to take note that….. A seminal study by
Harvard Business School professor emeritus John P. Kotter revealed that 70
percent of transformational change initiatives fail (Harvard Business Review,
1995). Later studies have produced similar results. A 2014 Deloitte study of
more than 5,000 innovations over the past 15 years calculated an aggregate
success rate of only 4.5 percent. Mauro
Libi Crestani.
Given the rapid pace of change in companies
today, demand for people who can lead successful change initiatives far
outstrips the supply. In fact, 91 percent of HR directors say that by 2018,
people will be hired on their ability to lead change. So why do so many change
initiatives fail? There is no shortage of great ideas that should have a
winning result. The quality of the new technology and innovative ideas are also
usually carefully tested before being launched. Where the failure usually lies
is in its acceptance. Mauro Libi
Crestani.
In a research paper written by Paul Lawrence
in the Harvard Business review he discusses the employee resistance to change.
Such resistance may take a number of forms—persistent reduction in output,
increase in the number of “quits” and requests for transfer, chronic quarrels,
sullen hostility, wildcat or slowdown strikes, and, of course, the expression
of a lot of pseudo logical reasons why the change will not work. Corporate
executives usually explain it off by saying that ‘people just resist change’
and feel that there is not much they can do about it, so they issue a directive
to its employees about the new change initiative. Employees will usually view
this as forcing change upon them and then there is little change of success. Mauro Libi.
Does it follow, therefore, that business
management is forever saddled with the onerous job of “forcing” change down the
throats of resistant people? A study was performed to find a solution. A study
was conducted by Lester Coch and John R.P. French, Jr. in a clothing factory. Mauro Libi
The work change was introduced to the first
group by what the researchers called a “no-participation” method. This small
group of operators was called into a room where some staff people told the
members that there was a need for a minor methods change in their work
procedures. The staff people then explained the change to the operators in
detail, and gave them the reasons for the change. The operators were then sent
back to the job with instructions to work in accordance with the new method. Mauro Libi
The other groups of operators were both
introduced to the work change on a “total participation” basis. All the
operators in these groups met with the staff people concerned. The staff people
dramatically demonstrated the need for cost reduction. A general agreement was
reached that some savings could be effected. The groups then discussed how
existing work methods could be improved and unnecessary operations eliminated.
When the new work methods were agreed on, all the operators were trained in the
new methods, and all were observed by the time-study people for purposes of
establishing a new piece rate on the job.
The first group results are quoted by the
researchers as … “Resistance developed almost immediately after the change
occurred. Marked expressions of aggression against management occurred, such as
conflict with the methods engineer, hostility toward the supervisor, deliberate
restriction of production, and lack of cooperation with the supervisor. There
were 17% quits in the first 40 days. Grievances were filed about piece rates;
but when the rate was checked, it was found to be a little ‘loose.’ Mauro Libi.
In the participation group there were no
quits, no hostility towards management and the output of production increased
after an initial slight drop that was due the change learning period acceptance
of change is an important ingredient and if handled properly a company can
increase its chance of success.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario