Change and motion are the very essence of being. The galaxies are fleeing away and changing their positions in respect of each other. Inside the stars, there is a constant tussle to break and merge matter releasing incomprehensible bouts of energy. Closer home, the environment is ever changing. We can never bathe in the same river twice. All of us can all fill today’s entire spread with such a list.

Most of us earn our living from outside home. This universal rule of change affects our workplace also. So much so, that if you retire from the same organisation where you joined, say, about thirty years ago, it will have definitely evolutionised to some extent. Some of it you will understand and like, some you will hate; some will be so subtle that you will not be  able to take it in, but nonetheless be affected by it.

It is important to understand the nature of change at workplace so that one does not waste time and emotion resisting change that is actually beneficial. We all agree that resisting change is as universal as change itself. Do not ask me why; it is human nature. Why fight something inevitable? The first white hair, the first crow’s feet—will happen no matter how much we hate it.

We are so much governed by this law that even our opinion about change has changed over the years.

Remember Julian Huxley in the opening line of Men Stand Alone? “Man’s opinion about himself has swung pendulum like between too little and too great of conceit of himself……”

This change is on the grand scale and can be observed by the eyes of history alone. At individual level, the ontogenic (bodily, form-al) changes maybe really harassing to the individual or his mentor. And on this certainty, rests the basic structure of the society where the individual belongs and will belong in future. The workplace is a society too. More defined, more structured, in fact, than the society outside. It has recognisable chains of command, communication channels and the combined efforts of all to reach a preset goal of profit.

Obviously, the workplace will also have periodic bouts of change in its functional and structural sphere.The organisation is created by its people. It is they who create the products, determine the quality of service and it is they who resist the change. But while initiating change, one must remember that a machine, if relegated to the scraphouse, will not commit suicide, but people might, and often do. This is where the effectiveness of the change agents is put to test.

Why change, in the first place? Obviously, if some situation is identified to be below par in the present or anticipated in the future, a change is initiated. Common sense is telling all of you that problem analysis are essential for successful and planned changing.  There are  manufacturing units, distributing channels, service sectors (hospitals or educational institutions). Then there are NGOs, insurance companies, and the very very rare monopoly units. Some face competitions; some are govt ruled and some private owned; some old and some new; no one is exactly like the other, in fact.

Unity in diversity

All of the above and the ones that I could not mention, speak different languages, have separate values and honour different work cultures. They are so different from each other that the same situation that is causing problems for one organisation can be a solution for another. So, if starting a change process is to be so unique, then how can this become an area of professional practice?

You were taught the answer to this in your schooldays. The principle of ‘Unity in diversity’ also applies to the change process. The overall process of change and change management remains the same no matter what type of organisation it is. That is why there are institutions that can exist to manage change for other organisations.

The basic approach to recognise the problem and arrive at a solution can be perceived at uniform level. And the expected difference between the present (problem) state and the perceived ideal state should be clear in the minds of the change agents. That gives them their “goal”. Something like, “there should be 30 per cent reduction in trainee dropouts” or “there should be a 15 per cent hike in annual profits”.

Important clues

Next comes the important stage of translating their plans to reality. At this stage, the think tanks go straight for the jugular. ‘Why is there a trainee dropout?’ ‘Are our benefits at par with the competitors?’ ‘What are the consequences if we make them a shade better?’ Once again, I would like you to go evoke your memories of the schooldays. This time, the English grammar class.

Remember while analysing sentences how important clues used to come out with simple questions like how? Why? When? (Ask the verb, the question How? And there you have the adverb) Professional change managers also get important clues by posing those questions to the organisation. The ‘How’ questions, as they are termed, give clues to what strategies to adopt for the best result.

“How to reduce the publicity overhead?”, “How to introduce this new rule about performance appraisal?”, “How to reduce cycle time of our production?” are examples of the type. It is obvious from the nature of the questions that they are asked at the level of the executives, specialists and resource persons.  The lion’s share of the work is done at this level. Naturally, they are given due importance. The head honchos are not bothered with the ‘How’ of the problems. They want results. Their question is the all enveloping ‘What’.  ‘What will indicate the success of this plan?’ ‘What controls should be applied in this process?’ ‘What external factors matter?’ ‘What are their contributions at the change process?’

Introducing a change involves a huge expense. Change agents would be well advised to have repeated conversation among themselves to ensure that the change is really necessary. Take the problem area of reducing cycle time of production:

*How can we reduce cycle time?

*Let us try this new machine

*Involves so much more expense

*The expense will be neutralised with more output in same period.

*Why did not finance allow it all this time?

*Visionless head sitting there. What else?

It might actually be found out that the problem area that is making the change necessary in the organisation is in fact residing somewhere else! As is in this fictitious case, another, and probably the major, problem area has been revealed to be the myopic head of the finance department, who might cost the organisation the proverbial ship for ha’penny worth of tar some day! The holistic benefit of this type of exercise is beyond imagination.

No thumb rule

There is no single thumb rule to introduce change in an organisation. Various factors determine the ways and methods of doing it. If the change agents sense that the proposed change would augur a vicious reaction, then coercive tactics could be alternately tried with authoritarian ones.

If there is a weak resistance, or even an indifferent reaction, then the reasons for the proposed change could always be discussed with representatives of the affected groups (provided enough time is there for that). 

Finally, it will be worth remembering that the higher up the target group is in the organisation, the more sensitive and adaptive the change agents would have to be in order to be accepted. The days of the martinet are indeed over.

The writer can be contacted on email: munna1999@yahoo.com