Type I – Change which is done to us.
Type II – Change which we do to ourselves.
Type III – Change which we do to others.
"How do we inflict Change
on others and get them to embrace the new and let go of the
old?"
The crux of the change issue for management
The word 'inflict' in the statement above was deliberately chosen
after careful consideration. It is a distinctly negative word,
bringing to mind all sorts of nasty accidents with sharp objects.
Why use such an emotionally charged word? Because it serves
as a strong reminder that Type III Change, is also Type I Change.
It is "Change which is done to us" from an employee’s
perspective.
Any manager who loses sight of the above observation risks transforming
the change process from something that is typically difficult
enough on its own to something even more challenging.
The trick, or strategy if you prefer, is to realize that if
you can conclude that the change is necessary, then it is almost
always possible for your employees to arrive at the same conclusion.
Providing of course, they are given the same information that
you used to determine the change was necessary. With this approach,
it is possible to shift their Type I change into the more universally
acceptable Type II change.
While this strategy is not always possible, if it is used every
time it is possible, we can convert a difficult process into
a simpler one.
When is it possible?
Far more often than one might expect, but it does require a shift
to how we think of management's role in managing change.
If we believe it is management's responsibility, and theirs
alone, to make decisions and then to implement them, then we
encounter a world where people will nearly always resist change,
as in they will resist being changed.
On the other hand, if we instead see management's role as that
of assisting others to make particular decisions about change
and to create environments where it is easier for them to implement
those decisions, then the process of change implementation becomes
easier. The resistance to change we will encounter in this strategy
is more in response to the difficulties of letting go of old
habits and the pain of learning something new, rather than the
change itself.
This shift in thinking isn't a trivial exercise. Some managers
resist the notion that employees can, or should, make decisions.
They consider those decisions the exclusive domain of management,
and are much more used to instructing people what to do, rather
than having them decide it is necessary.
Time saved could be time wasted
There is a common belief that this type of employee empowerment takes
too long - that it is easier and faster to just tell people what you
want, rather than having them figure it out for themselves.
The problem is, that the time saved is all for naught if employees
resist doing it. On the other hand, when people decide that something
needs doing, it is almost impossible to stop them from doing it.
Resistance to change is non-issue when the parties involved decide
it’s time to change.
This series started out with the intent of distinguishing between
different the types of change in a way more useful than large vs.
small and easy vs. difficult. In the end, there are only two types
of change... change we do to ourselves and enforced change that,
like a coin, has two inseparable sides; “Change that we do
to others" and "Change which is done to us".
In the end, the best type of change is that which we decide to embrace
on our own, and management's challenge is to funnel all change into
that single category. This is a difficult objective, but not an impossible
one if we're willing to change our own style of management.
|
