New Post has been published on http://www.passionatcentre.com/2015/04/14/management-resistance-to-change/
Management resistance to change
Management resistance to change
The environment in which most organizations operate has become more dynamic and complex over the last decades. As a reaction to this change in the environment, organizations realized they had to create a culture in which empowered and self-reliant teams took the lead in accomplishing the ultimate goal towards betterment of the organization.
What a lot of organizations missed to take into account, or at least underestimated, is the change-management needed in the management layer. Think about it: who is/are the employee’s most effected by a change that will lead to more power for the ‘common employee’?
If organizations don’t start to pay more attention to their, usually huge, middle-management + line-management layer, change processes that need to be deeply embedded in the organization’s culture will keep failing.
A short-term solution that is often used is to get rid of current middle-managers (and hire new ones immediately after) and assume that the line-managers reporting to them will simply bow and obey.
Two mistakes with that solution:
that short-term solution will need to be re-applied the next time you have a similar change. As change is nowadays an ongoing process (or at least it should be) you are compromising the commitment of your leadership team on the longer term and breaking down core accountability.
line-managers do not simply bow and obey (if you’re lucky). If they do, the mistake will have even larger consequences.
First of all, the new middle-manager has no relation whatsoever with this team of managers, and with such an important change process, having immediately available trust-relationships is key. Secondly, the newly hired manager is not influenced by the current culture (which can be a very positive thing) but he also is unaware of current practices and power-relations among the teams. That gives him less knowledge than an insider, and that gives him a disadvantage. Thirdly, the line-managers is the largest group that will be effected. How are you going to take care of them? Or better: how are you going to give care to them? When you hire the new managers, you better make sure they have the right skills: able to quickly establish relationships and trust, with high emotional intelligence to quickly identify the current power-relations in and between teams and not easily influenced so they don’t surrender to the current culture (the one you want to change). I you don’t hire new managers, you better make sure the ones you keep are real followers and not just ‘ja-knikkers’ which is the Dutch word for folks who say ‘yes’, but mean ‘no’.
A lot of organizations don’t take these things into account, and their change process, directed at making teams self-reliant, fail. They think of the basics they learned or read about, or take the word of a professional organizational change consultant (which they should be able to trust considering the amounts they charge, right?). They might even simply copy-cat the change-process of a similar organization forgetting that each organization has its own cultural blueprint created over time.
What most of them forget is, that managers are also employees, and they are also impacted by the change. I am even willing to argue that it’s the layer where the greatest amount of resistance comes from in any organizational change process.
One other factor that leads to failure is the amount of control that organizations want to have on the operations.
When it comes to control, most of the organizations are stuck in the early 1900’s, where science management was the leading theory for organizational management and where coercive power was the only one used. This is not official. Officially, they are all coaches, they all want the best for their teams, they all have leadership skills and there are no bad bosses. However, behind the scenes ‘in the office’ a complete different set of rules exist that you as CEO are not aware of. Just as the operational basis has its own secrets middle-management is not aware of. Just like the operational layer is ‘in for the change’ during meetings, your middle-layer will state the same in your board-meetings and in the dashboards they show you. The truth is, if the change does not bring them any positive personal gain (economic or otherwise) results, chances are that they will not change anything to their own set of rules and as a result, your cultural change plan will fail. Don’t get me wrong: some will not even be doing this on purpose. It’s an unconscious process resulting from the need to survive in their own environment.
So, there we are, you investigated, you payed (or not) for a consultant, you (or he) diagnosed and planned. You even did a pilot and the results were great. Just before leaving, after a 3 month-period, your consultant evaluated the results and presented them to you in a flashy dashboard presentation. Numbers looked great, so you implemented the plan.
Recently, you discovered that the results are not as good as were expected considering the great pilot results.
You drowned your self-reliant operational layer in the claws of bureaucracy (which is massive, because you are a huge organisation) and the teams are still being controlled by the managers you forgot to prepare for this important change… you changed the rules, they are either following or saying that they are following, but the culture has not changed – it only looks that way. Beneath the surface, everything is just like ‘in good old times’.
Any comments on how the ‘you’ person above could have prevented this? What should he/she do the next time he prepares for a change? What role should the line-managers play in the change-management process? What role should they be taking during and after implementation?
Would it make any difference in the levels of resistance if the middle-management layer consisted of servant leaders?
With passion,
Luisa












