|
MANAGEMENT CHANGES
When you mix people, organisations, money and the power to make decisions on another persons career aspirations, can it really be said that those decisions are made with not one doubt that they are being guided by only ethical principles or for company changes to take place? However, much of these traits are not taught in books (and for good reasons) they do exist. Whenever, someone wants to quote policies for the benefit of a company (even to cut costs) they look on the outside as justifiable but are they really? The difference is managers who know how to apply the information are at an advantage over those employees who attempt to do this are seen as troublemakers and are therefore dispensable sooner or later and usually by making you look inept in your abilities or some other excuse which leads to a high staff turnover. The employees are only supposed to work and not think mentality seems to apply. Therefore, any changes to company policies are two ways but certain managers and CEOs don't like it when its actually applied, because they are supposed to know better on how to run an organisation. For this they need to develop their skills and be pro-active in managing their careers. How many employees actually read a company policy manuals and know how to use them? How many know what happening in the industry they work in until a takeover happens. Senior managers are informed regarding changes ~ employees aren't (they get the watered down versions or pep talks) on changes that are occurring in the markets. When you ask CEO or managers a question on restructuring etc., its followed by "I'll come back to you later" that's mostly quoted, never ask them "when later". How many employees can talk to their manager regarding a business problem, make an appointment - five minutes only and its timed to the second, to discuss business in an informal way without being ridiculed? Most CEOs and managers sit there with an impassive expression and a glazed look in their eyes, hard as it is to practice real sincerity. How many CEOs or managers can say they really know know their employees feel honestly about the company or business world. But they sure know about their clients and shareholder's because they go out of their way too. Also when it comes to have a person with the sophistication of experience of management and the business world who doesn't mind dismantling a company in such a manner for changes to happen, no one would know it was coming. And if management keeps doing it because its the easiest way out of managing change that says alot about business. Even in business change starts with a different mind set first not only the apple seeds. Peter Senge says in this article "companies are actually living organisms, not machines". Doesn't the school of thought mean anything, or the school of business thought? For as Peter states that "we keep trying to drive change ~ when what we need to do is cultivate change" not try and fix thoughts of employees with fixated ideas instead of changing business perspective of how they function. Isn't there constantly renewed also relates to training and a company business. Again Senge comments "we infantalize organisations and that kind of behaviour keeps everyone else in the company at a stage of development in which they don't accept their own possibilities [and] deep change comes only thorough real personal growth ~ thorough learning and unlearning". (1)For unlearning means to me starting the process of thoughts all over again from the beginning and I have fun doing things this way (organised change chaos!) REFERENCE SOURCES: Learning for Change by Alan M. Webber, Fast Company Magazine, issue 24, page 178 The Dance of Change: the challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organisation by
Peter Senge, published by Doubleday/Currency March 1999. WEBSITE ARTICLE: . |