Is changed best secured through radicalism , inspiration and impatience or pragmatic , cautious and gradual? Because there is no middle way.
Assuming of course you have a choice which often is not the case as driven by events and the ambitions of an impatient board you go full steam ahead. Most leaders would recognise that whilst there is no middle way success is far more likely if the road ahead has been prepared in advance. That is if time and effort has gone into selling the changes, explaining why the changes are necessary and the benefits once they have been implemented. Listening to the concerns of those that will be directly effected and coming up with answers that reassure people that the ideas have been properly thought through and are realistic.
Even if change could be gradual, pragmatic and cautious the risk is it is never fully realised. I once joined an organisation where the task was to complete the stalled reorganisation. Already two years down the road the reorganisation appeared no nearer completion. The changes planed impacted on the majority of employees but a desire not to cause industrial strife had resulted in a very cautious and pragmatic approach. There were to be no compulsory redundancies yet there was to be a dramatic reduction in staffing and management posts plus a shift in the balance between qualified and unqualified staff. The pragmatic solution was to freeze all posts except management posts which were to be filled by temporary acting up arrangements. The result two years on was cynicism, frustration, inadequate staffing levels and a lot of managers who were acting up with no prospect of ever getting the post permanently. The result was a thoroughly demoralised work force.
The solution was to quickly implement the management reorganisation by slotting in existing managers into the new structure and acting up managers reverting to their substantive posts. With managers now on board half the existing vacant staff posts were disestablished the other half used to replace a vacancy for a qualified member of staff with an unqualified appointment. As posts became vacant in the future qualified staff were replaced by unqualified appointments in designated posts. This enabled the organisation to move forward with the reorganisation without compulsory redundancies, restored stability and repaired moral. Of course it resulted in an uneven transition to the new structure and still left the completion date open ended. But it was a pragmatic solution.
In my experience if change is not implemented within a tight time scale the momentum is lost, employees become demoralised by the uncertainty and before the implementation is completed circumstances change and the reasons for the changes no longer apply.
Blair Mcpherson former director author and blogger www.blairmcpherson.cu.uk
