How do you react when
you hear colleagues using some of the excuses listed in the 50 Reasons Not to
Change graphic?
My reaction is and has
always been that there are many reasons for not changing, but very few for not
instituting change. As an example: I vote in all elections, because I want to
institute change, or not institute change, either way, if I were to sit back
and accomplish nothing, I have nothing to complain about when things do not
fall into my favor due to my inaction.
Much like Godin discussed
in The Tribes we lead, that a heretic is those who look at the status quo and
decide they cannot abide by or live with the status quo condition. I like to
equate a heretic, much like someone who is not part of the group think mantra of
accomplishing business and is an innovator, maverick or individual willing to
go the extra mile to make notice of a condition, system or situation that is
unacceptable.
Do you ever use any of
these excuses yourself?
At times yes I do.
Remembering that change for the sake of change can be a negative or possibly a
bad thing. I have at times elected to go against the status quo, simply to
avoid the contagious virus known as “group think”, and the change or avoidance
of and to change because of what it is and what the group consensus decided and
not based upon conjecture, fact, benefit or near or long-term outlook.
How can you overcome the
thinking that creates those responses to change efforts?
If I understand the
question correctly… how can I be a change agent or OD practitioner (internal or
external,) in effecting positive change through convincing others that the
change is noteworthy and worth the investment of their time and effort?
The best and most proved
method of overcoming those forces that can inhibit change, convincing opponents
to change to become allies for change can be all or a portion of the following:
Identify forces that cause resistance to change
Recognize strategies that can increase motivation to change
Diagnose forces driving and resisting organization change
Experience reactions to a change
Leading Change, Major Factors Affecting Success of Change:
Advocates of change
Degree of change
Time frame
Impact on culture
Evaluation of change
Do you agree with Seth
Godin’s concept that tribes drive change?
I appreciate and can
identify with Seth and how he described that leading and connecting people with
ideas is the one sure method of inciting change. That said one must be cautious
about the ideas the message and the messenger attempting to incite those ideas
and change. I am of course referring to rhetoric, and the negative connotations
that rhetoric can have utilized especially in today’s political world through
deception and that of swaying people unethically also known as “empty campaign
rhetoric”. Rhetoric can also have a positive side as well. Aristotle during the
4th century wrote rhetoric as a clear persuasive function, an
epistemic function as a manner from which to discover what is known… and what could
be known about a subject.
What can you take away
from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
A renewed manner of
thinking about inciting change for the better and how to approach change with
the tools necessary for positive and proactive change. Like Michelle Kauffman’s
pioneered architecture of the three questions of change:
Who exactly are you
upsetting, because the status quo cannot be changed without upsetting someone?
Whom are you connecting;
lots of people are in it and focusing upon the connections that are made.
Who are you leading,
it’s that portion and not the mechanics of what you are building is what is
important and where change occurs.
References
Watkins, D. (2011, August 24). 50 reasons
not to change. Prezi, DOI: www.prezi.com
Godin, S. (2009, February). Seth Godin: The
tribes we lead.TED, DOI: www.ted.com
Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization
development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall
No comments:
Post a Comment