I like your thinking on change. I've been through, instigated and tried to enact change in various civil service organisations. (And would probably say these are representative of many other organisations) . I think it is all, ultimately, about people and the exercise of power in the workplace. Here are some thoughts:
Change is very often something done by senior people to (rather than with) more junior people. The senior people may have good reasons (perceived inefficiency, responding to external pressures, a shift in strategy) or these are a cover for less good reasons (wanting to look good to the boss, feel important, get promoted, accrue more power, pure ideology, needing things to be tidier, or wanting something to focus on and being uncomfortable with feeling bored, or in the worst case creating a crisis in order to be the hero fixing it). They've got where they are by taking risks: they like risk. I've seen changes being driven by all these reasons.
So more junior people often resist change. They may not trust that their seniors know enough about their jobs to get the change right. It seems risky, it might make things worse. They may have seen changes come and go and be cynical about this time. They may be exhausted from the last round of change and just want to focus on their jobs uninterrupted. They feel they haven't had any choice, or been consulted, and become disengaged. The uncertainty may make them feel anxious about their jobs and livelihood/ identity.
The change is often then badly enacted, without good two-way communication, dedicated change resources, or managing the actual process. Whoever is put in charge thought it was a great opportunity for glory and attacks the challenge they've been handed enthusiastically, but soon lose momentum. Nobody is incentivised to enact the change. People put their heads down and try to wait it out.
The senior people get frustrated at what they see as naysayers, blockers, risk aversion and evasion, leaving them with the choice of ignoring, or addressing head on, what they see as poor behaviours. And so change quickly becomes conflict; and all too often become personal. If it goes sour enough, with recriminations and people leaving, someone senior might step in to resolve it, cancel the planned change, move the instigator of the change along, and try to reinstate peace. Seldom will a very senior person back the change in the face of difficulty. Or some kind of watery compromise is reached, change in name not action, allowing everyone to save face.
And so creating and landing real change becomes very hard, if not impossible. I think change is sometimes necessary, but all too often not and people are right to challenge. When it is necessary, it needs commitment both to the outcome and the process, in spite of and expecting conflict, and while doing everything possible to bring people along and empower them, but being prepared to have grown up conversations about whether where the organisation needs to be is right for some of the people in it: and if not to support them in finding a place they will be happier.
Ultimately change makes organisations ask themselves whether they are prepared to make some people unhappy in getting there, and if the cost is worth the benefits.
I like your thinking on change. I've been through, instigated and tried to enact change in various civil service organisations. (And would probably say these are representative of many other organisations) . I think it is all, ultimately, about people and the exercise of power in the workplace. Here are some thoughts:
Change is very often something done by senior people to (rather than with) more junior people. The senior people may have good reasons (perceived inefficiency, responding to external pressures, a shift in strategy) or these are a cover for less good reasons (wanting to look good to the boss, feel important, get promoted, accrue more power, pure ideology, needing things to be tidier, or wanting something to focus on and being uncomfortable with feeling bored, or in the worst case creating a crisis in order to be the hero fixing it). They've got where they are by taking risks: they like risk. I've seen changes being driven by all these reasons.
So more junior people often resist change. They may not trust that their seniors know enough about their jobs to get the change right. It seems risky, it might make things worse. They may have seen changes come and go and be cynical about this time. They may be exhausted from the last round of change and just want to focus on their jobs uninterrupted. They feel they haven't had any choice, or been consulted, and become disengaged. The uncertainty may make them feel anxious about their jobs and livelihood/ identity.
The change is often then badly enacted, without good two-way communication, dedicated change resources, or managing the actual process. Whoever is put in charge thought it was a great opportunity for glory and attacks the challenge they've been handed enthusiastically, but soon lose momentum. Nobody is incentivised to enact the change. People put their heads down and try to wait it out.
The senior people get frustrated at what they see as naysayers, blockers, risk aversion and evasion, leaving them with the choice of ignoring, or addressing head on, what they see as poor behaviours. And so change quickly becomes conflict; and all too often become personal. If it goes sour enough, with recriminations and people leaving, someone senior might step in to resolve it, cancel the planned change, move the instigator of the change along, and try to reinstate peace. Seldom will a very senior person back the change in the face of difficulty. Or some kind of watery compromise is reached, change in name not action, allowing everyone to save face.
And so creating and landing real change becomes very hard, if not impossible. I think change is sometimes necessary, but all too often not and people are right to challenge. When it is necessary, it needs commitment both to the outcome and the process, in spite of and expecting conflict, and while doing everything possible to bring people along and empower them, but being prepared to have grown up conversations about whether where the organisation needs to be is right for some of the people in it: and if not to support them in finding a place they will be happier.
Ultimately change makes organisations ask themselves whether they are prepared to make some people unhappy in getting there, and if the cost is worth the benefits.