Managing Change - Is the leadership transparent ? An insight
We all talk about Change and display a whole lot of models and approaches. Its now evidently an open fact that Change management
is in full-force across all industries, yet many leaders are unprepared to act
upon and operationalize the requirements for change to avoid business
disruption. For many organizations, preparedness begins at the top and this
means that Leadership – across all levels – must have absolute clarity in
purpose and focus; there also must be alignment in strategic philosophy and
resolution goals.
Unfortunately, many organizations are slow to change
as the internal politics makes it difficult to reach consensus across all
levels of leadership – even when the necessity for change is urgent. This is
why many companies unknowingly lose momentum as they fail to change fast enough
— allowing the marketplace and competitors to pass them by. The result:
valuable time is misspent, resources applied and money invested without the
required outcomes to stay competitive, keep clients satisfied and employees
engaged.
Having led several change management strategies
throughout my career, it is imperative that an organization’s leaders have
clarity and are in alignment with their responses to the following questions
(as a result of their change management efforts)
- What does success look like
operationally and financially – and how does this benefit our employees
and customers?
- What is our mission trying to
solve for the industry we serve and how can we improve our ability
to accomplish more than in the past – so that the organization
can remain competitive, become more profitable and/or achieve market
leadership?
- What resources and
relationships are mandatory to accomplish our goals, achieve sustainable
success and be significant in our industry?
It’s
easy for leaders to say that they need to improve and invest in doing things
better (either because the marketplace is telling them to or because they need
to be proactive before circumstances force their hand). The reality is
that without strategy, change is merely substitution – not evolution. Simply
put, you can have an idea, but without the right strategy and execution of the
idea, very little if any progress will be made. When leaders fall into
this trap, they are being irresponsible and their credibility suffers, their
intentions come into question, and doubt begins to loom about their
capabilities and know-how.
So what
does clarity and alignment really mean?
Here is
one example: When leadership can break down the silos across
functional/departmental areas in order to stimulate and operationalize diversity
of thought. Through the cross-pollination of ideas and ideals the organization
can be more collaborative and inspire innovative teams
to solve problems and identify opportunities together – regardless of hierarchy
or rank.
The
clarity this example illustrates is that of a team work -mentality and without
it nothing else matters. This level of clarity breeds the expectation
from every employee that only those willing to be a team player belong in the
organization and fit the culture that is being created. You can challenge
each other and put your ideals to the test together– but acting in isolation
with no respect for the team is not acceptable.
If you
think about your own organization through this example, is everyone clear about
the organization’s workplace culture? Do they have the mindset and
attitude that is expected from each employee and its leaders in support of its
mission? Many organizations lack clarity because there is misalignment
within leadership that makes it difficult to clearly define expectations for
all involved. This is why operational silos exist — forcing change management
upon organizations and its employees.
It’s
impossible to have clarity and alignment when the leadership teams within a
company represent disjointed, disparate parts – rather than a convergence of
intelligence and know-how that is in sync and strongly interconnected.
Change
management is a challenge when leaders across the organization are not willing
to share their intellectual capital for the betterment of a healthier whole.
In order words, leaders hold-on to the intelligence that has defined
their success – perhaps indicating a hidden agenda – rather than share their
success and insights with others to strengthen the intellectual capital
foothold of the organization – so that it can more effectively grow and
compete.
It is
impossible to create an environment of clarity and alignment when transparency
is missing from its leadership. How can an organization be innovative and
more competitive in the marketplace when protecting hidden agendas takes
precedence over building momentum for the collective good in support of the
mission?
Comments
Post a Comment