Implementing Planned Organizational Changes

In the recent past, I remember, when an information technology executive was hired as the president and CEO for a major web services provider. At the helm, this new CEO wanted to bring in novel changes so that the company stands on its own strengths and get rid of its long prevailing weaknesses.

Agreed that the changes and innovation, from top to bottom, are always challenging and tough. It’s even more complicated when old players (senior managers) oftentimes discard novel ideas.

In simpler ways, the new CEO assessed the existent organizational culture and systems, headed a team of capable managers, laid down initiatives for phased changes, gave directives to responsible team to make the company prosper and took major decisions, with all calculations and risk analysis. 
In the beginning, there were too many doubts, rumors and speculations, but when the workforce started noticing dynamic and gradual organizational changes, then they were convinced. In fact, when a CEO possesses right leadership traits, mindset and strategic approach, then good changes cannot be sidetracked.

You know what? Some people ‘create confusion and control others’. That’s so erroneous and harsh. Isn’t it better to ‘convince others about the potential gaps and bring implement changes’? Well, even if there’s resistance to new ideas or innovative changes, it becomes easier to lessen internal resistance in a determined manner. 

And for that, of course, 'change management team' has to keep trying diverse ideas, precepts and rules to treat sick organizations and bring in desired changes for better outcomes.

Actually, when you don’t communicate effectively, then little information gets mingled with gossips and becomes rumors. What then? Employees carry differential opinions and they become confused, indecisive and reluctant to accept new changes. In such scenario, an able leader must convey clear message about intended changes, make them realize the deficiencies in the workplace and guide them to exert efforts for good changes.

In one manufacturing company, as a part of cost-cutting strategy, the new management decided to reduce surplus manpower by certain percentage and wanted to hire daily wage laborers to run production floor. When the matter was disclosed, the chosen senior as well as junior employees were left to accept ‘Voluntary Retirement Scheme’ (VRS) wherein they we were offered three months’ salary of each completed years of service. Although the senior staff demanded five months’ salary of each completed years of service, the new management stressed that its decision is definite and fair.

In some companies, when the management wants to bolster changes, they simply invite their employees to voice their ideas for the sake of company’s future and growth. That’s an impressive gesture, out of sheer simplicity.

In most cases, the process of changing organizational methodologies and practices is no simple task. A person who is in-charge has to be ‘iron-man’. That means all the way willing to accept challenges, complications and confrontation. 

To lessen challenges, you have to be organized, communicative and persistent. To clear away complications, you have to be straightforward in disseminating transparent information and instructions. And to shun the impacts of confrontation, you have to convince that changes aren’t a threat to anyone.

Well, if the top management wants a ‘culture of change’ to anticipated levels, then they have to be truthful, minimize interruptions and become supportive to make their employees aware at the workplace. Presumably, the management has to prepared to listen to their employees and dispel their vague doubts and fears.

Image source: Pixabay.com