Fred Nickols wrote:
<< . . . I've not seen much lately that passes for sound change management . .
. I see lots of consultants in action and, frankly, when it comes to change
management, most of them are much better at their technical
disciplines and officer-level politics than they are at introducing change in
a complex organization. There is an unbelievable degree of reliance on
Bennis, Benne & Chin (BB&C) called the "power-coercive" change strategy . . .
But bread-and-butter tactics appear to me to be totally absent (e.g.,
marshaling and enlisting support, building coalitions, etc.). For the most
part, the so-called change agents I've seen in action lately seem to want to
stick their hands in the CEO's back and make his or her head turn and mouth
move while spewing forth the consultant's words. . . . >>
Fred's and my experiences must be similar, since it looks something like this
to me, too. For change to occur beneficially, all parties affected should be
involved. As Fred wrote later in the post I've quoted above, this will take
lots of recurring conversations at all levels in the organization. The
conversations should be structured so that important issues are addressed.
Conclusions and arguments should be fed back to participants in iterative
cycles. Of course, as Fred also wrote, those wishing to promote the change
will need to marshal resources, enlist support, and so on. Alas, I agree that
much of what happens in the name of change management now days involves
backroom strategizing and PR. Not the way to go.
--Rich