Conundrum of change explained change will be
ever complex process that’s impossible to fully control or predict. The prolonged
uncertainties on change complexities have provoke us to make change that’s more
make sense to our organization. Tiring and complex models, frameworks and
concept plunged organization in rat race to embracing change in no time. I
disagree in some way about explaining movement from current state to desired
future state in linear change process, change would rather work and move in
continuum. The logic is future state would soon be appeared as current state due
to span of time, with new people in
flux into organization and changing of environment. What could be the ideal is
to embrace change that uphold the pillar of sustainability and continuous
growth. We should learnt not be content of our status quo, because the wheel of
change may put us again at below.
Democritus, a Greek philosopher concludes that
change only happen in their positioning and space, while Heraclitus in his
famous analogy of life to the river wisely saying that ‘no man ever steps in the same river twice, for tits not the same river
and his not the same man.’ Both universal and fluid entities theories
unravel the deep understanding the whole purpose of change. Covey mentioned
that change is the journey to reached the goals of certain purpose, and we must
hold to our objectives compass so it will always redirect us whenever we
deviate from right way. Covey again asserted that people don’t make the change
but principles does. As long as we hold tightly to the underpinned principles,
they change is always on his way.
Another paradox is the gap in defining the
outcome of the change. It is very critical decision in realizing change
especially involves creativity and innovation because of different perspectives
in change result. For instance, the British
Railway in the verge of implementing the computerized system for its train
operation, received multiple respond from different stake holders especially
the worker’s union. They finally success in implementing the system after
engage in long participative communication to realizing the importance of the
system for the organization. Beer and Nohra (2000) in ‘cracking the code of
change’ bravely stated the brutal facts that about 70% initiative fails. When
there is no silver bullet or magical wands on how to manage change
successfully, its urging that organizations embraced some distilling principles
of change to resort paradoxes and ongoing ambiguity. Six distilling principles
required organization to fathom are learn from the past, maintain peripheral
vision, exploit and explore, diversify, games changes and be mindful of larger
scale change.
Effective leaders always provide advantages to
changes and determine the efficient of the change process. Kotter argues that there is some tension
between the leadership and management terms. Management while carrying the set
of process, leadership in different aspect creates vision of the future, the
strategies to get there, motivates and inspires to make it reality. Leaders
always grab hidden opportunities and extensively set the standard that compatible
to the organization.
Change need back to reality, going to its root
and foundation. Organizational change would be less success if the individual
within resist to change or disunite. How
collective we are but the substance always the individual particles. To
endeavor and strive change as a team there must element of integration and
coherent of purpose. I do agree it’s always practical and demanding to answer ‘how’
to change (theories, framework) but in reality, what really propel the process
of change is the question ‘why’ we need to change….
No comments:
Post a Comment