21st Century Change Management

21st Century Management

21st Century Management Consulting

Organizational Development

21st Century Organizational Development

21st Century Organizational Development Consulting

Process Consultation

21st Century Supervision

21st Century Leadership

Dialogue

21st Century Change Management

Change management as a consulting practice became an important specialized area in the late twentieth century. Rapid technological change and ideas such as Total Quality Management and delayering made organizations more aware of the usefulness of advice and assistance on implementing change. In addition, many change efforts led to new management practices; and it became increasingly seen that changing management styles was a goal in itself. But in many cases (downsizing being perhaps the most notable example) these change efforts seem to have done more harm than good.

The mere title of a recent book Beyond Change Management shows that in this area, as in all management practice, there have been major advances in thinking. What might be called the standard model of change management can be seen in the works of John Kotter, whose Leading Change remains the single best book on the subject.

Under this mode, consultants worked with top managers who had planned the change, primarily to help them overcome the resistance of those at the bottom levels. Compared to older practices under which resistance was something to be ignored, the idea of acknowledging and dealing with resistance represented progress. But this thinking still tended to reflect older concepts of top-down management.

Newer, post-stewardship, ideas of organizational structure require a different view of change management. A good example is Glenn Allen-Meyer's Nameless Organizational Change. The author proposes a new model, one in which external and internal consultants help the organization negotiate the change. The great merit of this book is its dispelling of the idea that change is something that must be "sold": The advertising campaign style of change management rarely worked well and is unsuited for the twenty-first century environment.

Allen-Meyer's book shows how resistance to change has gone from being the "enemy" to being perceived more neutrally as necessary and not altogether negative. Indeed, the newest view sees resistance as actually an ally, since it shows points in the system that need attention. Rick Maurer's Beyond the Wall of Resistance is an example of this trend.

Change management, as Kotter so well describes in his classic paper, "Why Transformation Efforts Fail," frequently, if not generally, fails because organizational development factors are an add-on rather than in control, because resistance to change is devalued, and because responsibility for the change is wrongly seen as belonging to only some levels of the organization. As we contemplate the lessons learned in the last two decades, the following principles will guide successful twenty-first century change management:

Change management is ongoing. In this century, fast paced change is the norm. Conceptualizing change management as a specialized practice area or skill is therefore no longer valid. The need is not so much for campaigns to implement change are not what are needed, but rather for building a capacity for change into the organization.

Change is for everyone. Management is no longer the business of a specialized caste. Every job and every unit is subject to change. Hence everyone needs change management skills and everyone is a change agent.

Change should be welcomed. From a view of change management based on overcoming resistance, we have advanced to one that sees change as a negotiable process. The logical corollary is that resistance to change, while normal, need not be the key concern because the organizational culture views change as positive and because change is no longer carried out as something imposed from outside. Indeed, resistance should be seen not so much as a danger to be avoided but more as an indicator of issues that need to be faced.

Change can have negative effects. The "advertising" methodology of change management tended to delegitimize peoples' concerns by putting the focus on acceptance of the message rather than on employees' reaction to it. The history downsizing presents vivid and drastic cases of change with lasting negative results because organizational development factors and ethical considerations were ignored. A good organization has to be honest and proactive about the pain as well as the gain from change.

So, if you're thinking of hiring a management consultant because you are introducing a new software or because you are reorganizing your department, your instincts are sound enough. Change management in the traditional sense is still a valid concern, though change management as integral part of day to day business ought to be the goal. However you conceive change, we would urge you to think broadly about what you are doing, why you are doing it, and how you are going to do it. And we would be glad to help you if you want to do things the best way.