Management – so many definitions u’ll find on the WWW. One of the most basic and fundamental definition of management what people come out very often is “The art of getting goals accomplished in organizations through others.” This is, I think, more goal/task oriented. This speaks about how to utilize/consume the talent of other people for getting work done.
The definition that I appreciate the most is what I learned in my early engineering days. I thought over that concept for about 2 days and then bought in. It said management is nothing but managing men tactfully. (Ladies, please take ‘men’ in general – u r also included in the definition)
The definition that I appreciate the most is what I learned in my early engineering days. I thought over that concept for about 2 days and then bought in. It said management is nothing but managing men tactfully. (Ladies, please take ‘men’ in general – u r also included in the definition)
Manage – men – t -:- managing people tactfully
This is more people oriented than task/goals. It says, manage your people – they will manage the work/task.
Actually one has to decide, ‘is the goal/task more important or the person doing that task?’ It is rather difficult to decide between the two options. So, one has to adopt a contingency approach to a particular situation. My take – the person.
But wat if the situation changes, or needs a change ??? Then, the art of management also needs to have a change. (you may disagree to that) But then, its all about managing the change. These days ‘change’ is the buzzword – “Be the change you want to see” – “Change is only constant” – “Change for better” - … And I agree, in this current dynamic recessive slow growing scenario, we need to change. We need to take it to the next level – above or below – have to be decided depending on the situation.
Actually one has to decide, ‘is the goal/task more important or the person doing that task?’ It is rather difficult to decide between the two options. So, one has to adopt a contingency approach to a particular situation. My take – the person.
But wat if the situation changes, or needs a change ??? Then, the art of management also needs to have a change. (you may disagree to that) But then, its all about managing the change. These days ‘change’ is the buzzword – “Be the change you want to see” – “Change is only constant” – “Change for better” - … And I agree, in this current dynamic recessive slow growing scenario, we need to change. We need to take it to the next level – above or below – have to be decided depending on the situation.
Two sayings about change…
“It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones who are most responsive to change” – Charles Darwin
“To cope with a changing world, an entity must develop the capacity of shifting and changing – of developing new skills and attitudes; in short, the capability of learning” – A De Gues, The Living Company
“It is not the strongest species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones who are most responsive to change” – Charles Darwin
“To cope with a changing world, an entity must develop the capacity of shifting and changing – of developing new skills and attitudes; in short, the capability of learning” – A De Gues, The Living Company
Change management (CM). So, wat is this CM? CM is a ‘structured’ approach to transitioning individuals, teams, and organizations from a current state to a desired future state (WIKI definition). Wow… structured…approach…transition… Boss, easier said than done… This is not that easy as short as the definition is. I m working in the same profession as of now – and believe me, its damn difficult to structure the approach and approach the transition… and I am working at a organizational level (in the core team) and everyday, one way or other, have to face the heat (though v’ve been given the best of the best places to have our office in)… Managing the change at the individual level itself is hard way, at team level – more harder than individual…
So the first of the steps is to manage the change for an individual. And it doesn’t matter whether you are in the change management process or not, believe me, its important for every one of us to change. And what all the more matters is that this change should be ‘continual’ and not ‘continuous’.
My personal experiences in first (and only) 30 months of career have been good. Each year, there has been a new transition in my work and this has led to my ‘continual’ development – and I can vouch for it. The saying – ‘Rome was not built in a day.’ (so wat?? At least the idea of building a Rome certainly would have come in a day !!!) There has to be a process of learning-unlearning-learning… all the time (pls, forget not to keep the knowledge while unlearning).
So every individual has to go through the CM process.
Now, lets look CM this way. Change the management, i.e. change the people who are managing other people (I just looked it this way). This is the new strategy that’s been deployed in the corporate world. Non-performers, in today’s fiercely competitive businesses, have got no place. Either they will be moved out the business (sacked), or will be put in some roles that they won’t enjoy and leave the business.
There again, if those individuals had changed themselves earlier, they wouldn’t have been rogered royally and would have survived the survival.
So the first of the steps is to manage the change for an individual. And it doesn’t matter whether you are in the change management process or not, believe me, its important for every one of us to change. And what all the more matters is that this change should be ‘continual’ and not ‘continuous’.
My personal experiences in first (and only) 30 months of career have been good. Each year, there has been a new transition in my work and this has led to my ‘continual’ development – and I can vouch for it. The saying – ‘Rome was not built in a day.’ (so wat?? At least the idea of building a Rome certainly would have come in a day !!!) There has to be a process of learning-unlearning-learning… all the time (pls, forget not to keep the knowledge while unlearning).
So every individual has to go through the CM process.
Now, lets look CM this way. Change the management, i.e. change the people who are managing other people (I just looked it this way). This is the new strategy that’s been deployed in the corporate world. Non-performers, in today’s fiercely competitive businesses, have got no place. Either they will be moved out the business (sacked), or will be put in some roles that they won’t enjoy and leave the business.
There again, if those individuals had changed themselves earlier, they wouldn’t have been rogered royally and would have survived the survival.
So, wat to conclude, is that manage the change within yourself to manage the change in the change management.
I know, I know… its really difficult to manage the change in the change management process…
LoneWarrior…
LoneWarrior…
18 comments:
I liked this post!
A few comments though - the part where you said we gotta decide whether the task is important or the person doing it... I say why cant both be equally important? you dont have to split the importance by both 50-50, but both can be shown a high level of importance both at 100%...
That, I think is the true test for a leader.
The Change Management part - I totally agree. CM is very essential esp in these ever changing times. Its important on an organisation level; but more so on an individual level!
Hmm..a long article though on things which I (dunno why) am pretty uncomfortable with!!
Shardy speaks his work. It seems to me. And exactly the work that I hate to do :).
At the first place, let me assure Shardy that this is not something thats just contrasting and him knowing me should absolve me of any guilt :) :)..
I have some vert clear ideas:
1. Task and Executor can never be differentiated apart to be ever compard on any terms.
2. Change is something that happens-I am totally against any idea of "trying to bring" some change to achieve something. This is my PERSONAL opinion though; and I stand by my thoughts. This happens when you realize if way X hasnt delivered and you need to mojavascript:void(0)ve to Y. :) (or the client would grill u up!)
Though however much acclaimed Darwin is about change, i think even he woudl have believed that change will help you out only if you are capable enough of living though the change. Its very simple. I cannot survive the Artic winds without a sweater!(A long shot). My Nth generation also wont be able to do that because the father of the tree; i.e me would be long dead before that. So, even if you try to brace up for a change; you ought to be strong enough to benefit from that!
So, to change or not to change is a question that I believe depends upon what you percieve and can vouch for. Higher the strength, more instrinsic is the process of change (as opposed to the idea of a "change mgmnt") more possible is the object of change being realised.
And yes, i dont want to extend out on this...would rather close out; BUT, in a one liner, emphasis should be more on the final goal rather than the changes need to reach the goal!
Shardy, Anyways, hope things are going simply great at M&M and yes do get back if you even loved a word of this :)
Cheers!
The wheel of change moves on, and those who were down go up and those who were up go down. ~Jawaharlal Nehru
I like the topic, but I belive the exigency to be likely to depend upon the predicament.
Change must be enforced as when required. As Nehru said, enitities which are at bottom tend to rise, and entities at top may witness rainstorm.
As the famous saying from the fairy tales highlight "be careful what you wish for". Agreed to your point about the idea had pop-up to build Rome. I belive Rome was not an idea, but it was a planning. If you think of change and plan considered to be distant stars respectively, bright and glittering, yet vague,visualize hair-line drawn to each star,they wed together and create meaningful constellations.
Consequences and proper planning may sustain your success. And you may be called as the heir of Charles Darwin proving "Survival of the fittest"
Conclusion
"A change without a plan,forfeits recovery post disaster" - Sabs
Sundar...
Darwin's - change will help the capabled one, u say. but its in one's hand to increase the capability.
i would like you to elaborate on the relationship 'change & strength'...
and has the change need to happen always to get the goal???
Sabsy...
u've taken a exotic different tangent. its perfectly correct that extensive planning needs to b done to make a change. But its more important to get struck by the thought of having a change. planning and execution needs to follow...
...What the #@@#$, make its understandable for aaam cyber janta like me...
JA...
think strategic boss..
In reply to Sundars comment...
I agree that you have to be capable to live upto the change. But what makes you say that all change cant be managed (thats what i understood as the essence of ur drabble)
Lets take your example of the Arctic. The change here is that your habitable atmosphere has suddenly become hostile with harsh freezing winds. Lets say a few guys in ur group are strong enough to survive it with the current clothing they have on... and the others are not that strong. This can be related to a typical situation in an organisation.
There is a merger... (the habitable atmosphere has become hostile) and many are panicky about their position in the company while others are carefree and know that they will remain no matter what (some are stronger than others)
So, what does change management do? The team comes in and manages the change... (in essence, they give the other guys in your group warmer clothing to help them survive the hostile atmosphere)!
And whoever said that CM means bringing about a change? Change is inevitable! Change Managers realise this fact of life, and plan for change, then when the change happens, they manage it! Thats the essence of CM.
...Its the D Company fear factor...
Dolphin/Shardy,
Basically, I expound the idea that "Change Mgmnt - To bring around a change" is an intrinsic process; which happens by itself; which results due to external circumstances; which is affected upon by the capability of the under-goer. Meaning, the phrase of trying to bring in something itself is void.
1. Providing warm clothing to basically a weak guy at the expense of a strong guy increases the risk of the stronger guy falling out sometime later; and the weaker will only prolong until the warmth gets out. You can trust that this is not going to infinity until unless you keep on dropping relief supplies ;)
2. When I say change cannot be managed; I mean to say that your body will itself begin to adapt to local circumstances in incremental steps as it believes to be correct. Yuo cannot make child run at the first year itself with any kind of "bringing in change management" or "managing a change tomake the baby run faster"! It is definite to have adverse effects which would be out of your control. So connecting to the 1 point, this is why I say "Change is intrinsic"!!
4. Dolphin, Whatever the condition be, a merger, a split, an acquisition, corporate, geological whatsoever, but the basic principle stays : Strong survive;weak diminish. Any activity which seeks to change this is baseless. Yes, you may plan to identify the strong ones, manipluate the weaker ones to calm then; do all kinds of stuff. BUT, basically, I term it as "selection of people" according to your merits. I dont see any logic in trying to bring around a change mgmnt here. Hope this clarifies.
4. Sharad, Increase in capacity is something which you can do; yet there is a limit there. If you are not able to reach the full limit of your strenght, it would be termed as under-utiliized. I dont think reaching upto your max is called change. Yes, if your chnge mgmnt allows to exceed your physical limits; like if you can pull out a plane with bare hands, I would be interested to know about the change mmnt practise.
Last, Sharad, I think you mis-understood my idea of preferring to look at the goal rather than the changes for the goal. I had a view(at that time; when I wrote that post) that I begin to work for a goal. I begin to discard the things that block me; I begin to accelerate on patches which I feel are aiding. And all this decision of discarding or accelerating is so intrinsic to my execution, I can see the path only when I have reached the goal!
And yes, to folks, I would suggest you guys to notify in case of a post related to the current thread to the people involved in the discussion. This would make sure that the conversation is active and recent enuf!
Cheers!
Oops, I didnt see te notifier option! :(
Whoever said about providing warm clothing to the weak guy at the expense of the strong guy? Its about giving clothing to all. Now talking about Darwin’s theory… let’s not get into whether it is really proven or not cause that’s a different topic that many scientists are already debating on!
I somehow don’t get your philosophy of survival of the fittest as if the corporate world is a jungle. Its human race we are dealing with here. And unless someone is really dumb and beyond hope, there isn’t really a “weak” person who needs to be chucked out when the going gets tough.
I may be going off on a tangent here, but every person is different (they have different strengths) so if one persons strengths are different from the others, don’t term him as weak! A Change managers job is to manage the change – period! Now if the change is a merger that requires job cuts, redundant non performers are sacked – if you term that as weak – so be it. Again if there’s an IT implementation or outsourcing, redundant employees lose their jobs, were they weak? I don’t think so! Their job is just redundant to this particular company. And what if the change is that there is a new CEO… strong and weak don’t come into this picture at all. Yeah change is inevitable. But it needs managing. Thinking that survival of the fittest will take care of it – ah I don’t know how far that will get anyone!
Dear Dolphin,
I think at last you have got atleast some of my points correctly understood. I also will not enter Darvin's domain; but I would like to come more to the corporate jungle.
A corporate world is nothing more than but an extension of nature's environment. This is a typical literary jungle; just replace the non-human animals with humans and you get a Bingo!.
I really do not understand ki why do you get confused with the weak inspite of putting up commendable examples.
1. A merger creates a redundancy which I need to awash for my survival. If I try to provide clothing for everybody, my company isnt going to survive the recession and I would be out of the bussiness in two salary months. But even here, does anything happen to the employee who is good at his job; who works truly of what is expected of him?
2. Let me have a new CEO; but does that change YOUR job; IF you would have been doing it correct? Why do I need to have a change manager to tell me that the new CEO likes to take meetings at his house? If I need to report to the CEO, he can as well tell me that we will have an informal environment. I dont think I need anyone to effect this change into my group.
You must have heard about a book, Who says Elephants cant Dance by Loius Geirtner, IBM. The book is a classic example of so called change management. But if you go through that, you will realize that most of the things undertaken during the process were ssimply corrections to some wrongs being already done. And it was people werent doing out their job in the required manner. Now Loius didnt go out and please all people that everyone should remain on the boat. People who bring, sustain bussiness remain on board; people who wreck bussiness can simply go home and wreck theirs!
So, I dont really think that your idea of having trying to get everyone better will be sustainable in the long future. Your employees may love you; but your shareholders, you yourselves(you would be having lots and lots of options :) :)) will be very angry at whats going on!
Do get Back!
Sundar,
Its not that I disagree with everything you’re saying. Just making some points visible so that you understand that your viewpoint - it’s not absolute!
Agreed that we call this a corporate jungle. Its pretty vicious, if that’s the way you put it.
With a merger – obviously the guys good at his job – nothing happens – but there are times when the company taking over (or in a merger the more prominent company) has someone to do the exact same job who is equally good. Then though our first guy was strong – he still loses his job *because his job is now redundant* Even the best of employees can suffer during a merger – and sometimes its not even the question of losing a job but a question of total unrest within the organization because of different cultures. This is the same when there is a CEO change.
People can go about happily doing their job to the best of their abilities... but you must agree that the environment in which they d their job does have a large impact on them. A striking case study would be the failure of “Covey” and “Franklin” merger at the first attempt. Coming to CEO change, No one will ever forget what Carly Fiorina did to HP! Both cases are a great demonstration of the unrest created by change.
Expert Change Managers make sure that the unrest is addressed right from the start and that it never reaches these proportions. Change Management is a scientific process that is seldom understood and requires expertise that is very rare to come by.
And if you still feel change management is unnecessary… then well you are free to have your own opinions… I rest my case!
Dolphin, here you come in. My basic thought is why an unrest over a new CEO, a new owner, a new merged entity??? I dont really understand how these things can unsettle me unless the new circumstance is basically propagates and foolish and idiotic behaviour. And it is for this reason that I keep on saying that change management in your so called scientific terms is actually trying to aesthitically plaster a broken wall to show free space or trying to remove broken debris by hushing things under a carpet. Yes, the process is scientific, because it addresses exactly the correct concerns of a useless idiot whos pissed off because of some worthless notions which he cannot take charge.
Again, unrest would be caused only if the new environment is wrong in every way; when wrong things are corrected, no body shouts or screams; all contribute to the progress; and here is where I dont understand what work you have to do(in case you r a change manager!)..
Anyways, you are entitled to your views as I am; and I would expect a vehement reply from you if you are defending your case as ideologically as you think. We can shift the forum elsewhere if this adds a lot of noise to this post; I would love to see some meaningful conclusion to this :)
Cheers!
Sundar,
Like I said earlier… a change in top management is a change in culture and leadership. Agreed what Carly Fiorina did was foolish. But that was an extreme example. Even under normal change circumstances, there are troubles. And I’m not saying this from some theory or book. I have personally observed and spoken to people affected by factors like change in leadership styles in at least 3 different companies that I’d rather not name. Now if you refuse to believe that a change in leadership style can affect you then I would say please experience it first hand or just turn around and ask whoever you can how they have dealt with a new boss. I am sure you will not disagree that there would be resistance if your boss was a very people oriented person and then your new boss is totally task oriented.
It’s not that the new boss is foolish or idiotic! He is just different and that in turn means a change that you have to deal with. Now this change is at an individual level, and can be managed as well with a little facilitation. But we are talking about organizational change here. Imagine if there is unrest by just a boss changing, then how much unrest will exist if the entire working style of the company changes? Water filter talks of exchanging discomfort, the informal leaders’ viewpoints, the enduring spirit of the employees closing to an end, and of course the 20% of the pessimists and cynics creating 80% of the trouble!
I don’t get your analogy of “trying to aesthetically plaster a broken wall to show free space or trying to remove broken debris by hushing things under a carpet” By this statement I understand that you have no clue about what change management is! It’s not some kind of operation that is meant to tone down the noise by giving a toy to a crying baby! It’s not some kind of a cover up operation saying “oops we made a boo boo… now the change managers come in a cover it up so it seems like nothing happened!” So I would suggest that you get the concept of change management clarified… then I’m sure you’ll see where I’m coming from!
Also, to answer your doubts, unrest is not caused only if the new environment is wrong in every way! Unrest is caused even if there is the smallest amount of trouble in a perfectly wonderful environment and change in culture/work style is definitely a big change… so the unrest. Have you personally encountered change in a large degree and not had any effect on you? Moreover, people do all contribute to the progress when a problem is being corrected. Without the peoples contribution obviously things can’t be corrected! But how do all the people know the direction to contribute? They are not all telepathic you know... and if in this group there happen to be 3 or 4 informal leaders… who think differently from each other? There will be chaos!!!
Dolphin,
Para1 : Leadership is always by example. I or rather anyone else would always look up to anyone who successfully leads and instills the sense of a urging drive to perform. A new CEO who isnt a good leader doesnt affect me for it becomes all the more important for me to start taking the mantle of setting up an example. I become all the more revved up because I see some responsibilties which I feel I can do better; no offence to the CEO. Its the task and the team that needs priority; not me or the CEO being considered a leader!
Para 2: I have worked under different, even extreme set of managers. Being in a typical technology industry, and fortunately in such a short time, have been with managers who work for delivery, money, time, service all being rated to ones self. And please believe me, I have found it interesting to work with all, when I have focussed only on the work, client, quality; managers who did not like my idea under-utilized me fearing my views to be detrimental; managers who understood my committement showered more work for me. So thats the reason why I keep on saying - If work, quality of service is what you are committed for, you will automatically take the mantle of pushing things into the correct direction. Non believers will hinder; they may get converted; or they may not. But those who understand will be enough to share the burden and move on. Non believers WILL anyways get washed out.
Para 3: Unrest/no unrest. Trouble happens when something is being forced wrong. It may happen due to whatsover reason yo name; but true people get pained only when smething wierd starts. Fakers will get washed in every round and will land up in every round. They are not to be cared, bothered with; with expiries they get off the back. I dont know if you would call it trouble if the manager believes that early to work and early to home is the new mantra instead of an existing slogging environment.
Ok.Tell me how change management works in the following scenarios.
1. JPMorgan buys Bear Sterns for a pittance.
2. HP buys out EDS. Decides to slash 25% of combined work force to effect benefits.
3. Yahoo is on a brink of collapse. New CEO steps in.
I am awaiting for change management strategies on the above 4.
Cheers!
whoa!! a lot of hard work went in2 dis un!! :)
liked it!!
Post a Comment