I have long regarded the term “Change management” as being an unintended oxymoron, with humorous undertones.

Both the activity of ‘change management’ and the title of ‘change manager’ that we see so frequently in the situations vacant advertisements, imply that change is an event, and is an event requiring a manger with specific ‘change’ expertise. It fails to accept the obvious, that change is not an event it is a process, as inevitable as death and taxes. This means that every manager must be capable of managing change, it is not a specialised occupation, it is every managers occupation.

Why is it humorous? If we have managers who continually fail to understand that change is a process and not an event, then they are not managers, so we should be concerning ourselves with a ‘change of management’ before considering the ‘management of change’.

We know that some people embrace change whilst others are intimidated by it, and those who are intimidated by change should not be in a position where their feelings of intimidation (for which read insecurity, inability to change, or plain inadequacy), can be allowed to retard the process of change. Change should mean progress and if we afraid of progress then we belong to the flat earth society, with those who continue to use candles in place electricity, and do not go in an aeroplanes (because if God had intended us to fly he would have given us wings !).

These are the negative reactions to change that must be avoided, because if change for the company is seen to be good, and has been decided upon as a route to moving the company forwards, then individuals cannot be allowed to retard, or as is often the case, to sabotage the process of change.

Sabotage invariably takes place when any in-depth level of change is planned, by those who have established a ‘unofficial mafia’ within the organisation, because if the right type of change is planned, then this ‘underground management structure’ will not survive.

Yet in so many instances the fear or concern that employees have when faced with change is the direct result of bad change management.

We can look at one of the worst examples.

Regrettably, when companies merge there are always claims that great savings can be made by streamlining the operation of the conjoined company by getting rid of people.

This inevitably creates a negative attitude towards change, that could so easily have been avoided. Those to be ‘downsized’ are usually selected by taking the date of the merger, subtracting fifty or fifty-five years from it, and decreeing that everyone born prior to that date will take early retirement. What a great managerial decision that is !

The so called management has failed to realise that full integration of the new enterprise should be their priority and that the prime criteria for selection of those who should remain with company, is their ability to contribute to moving the process forwards. Full integration should take place in three to four years, so it makes no sense to get rid of anyone, who could, during that time, make a valuable contribution.

This make it obvious that those who should be made redundant are the below average performers. Why get rid of an above average performer with five years service left, but keep a below average performer with twenty years service left?

This means that managers will have to scrutinise their staff carefully to decide who fits into the above average group and who doers not. A major reason why this route is rarely used, is because managers often do not know which employees are above average and which are not.

The differences are dramatic, as the first and most commonly used “firing by date of birth’ route has the new enterprise starting off with negative employee attitudes, decidedly against change, whereas by using the managerial approach of getting rid of the deadwood, creates a very positive employee attitude. This has tremendous advantages in achieving full integration quickly, and this is usually the major factor in determining the success of the merger.

Changing the existing culture is another misunderstood objective in bringing about change. In most South Africa companies the culture is “as dictated” by top management. Changing this type of culture is important, as it will retard the progress of the company for as long as it exists.

So it is not the need for change that is in doubt, but the process whereby change is brought about. In our typical South African company the standard ‘change management’ approach will require many minds to be changed and invariably quite a few mangers to be changed, because those who found the ‘top down’ approach gave them a ‘comfort zone’ in which to hide their inadequacies, will not want to change.

But dynamic high growth international companies not have a corporate culture that is ‘as dictated by top management’ but one that is ‘as dictated by the requirements of meeting the strategic plan’.

The first relies upon hierarchical conformity, and the second on situational conformity.

Instead of changing the hierarchical corporate culture by seeking to remove it directly, it is better to introduce the concept of situational conformity by starting with the introduction of high performance work systems.

This will change the culture indirectly, by showing better routes to operational efficiency that usually engenders much higher levels of support. This can be reinforced with other routes to change such as effective communications, improved routes to interlinking, and hence to integration.

When we have succeed we will have created a much more dynamic, quicker moving company that has accepted change for what it is, an essential part of progress. The company will welcome new concepts, systems and ideas, not because they are new, but because they are better, and will be able to adopt and implement such ideas and concepts quickly and painlessly.

They will have done so without the need for ‘change management practices’ or ‘change managers’ because everyone in the company is involved in change, and they are all experts.

---

Share this article